Redlasso's clipping service is shut down

Hulu partners NBC and Fox have sued Redlasso, alleging that Redlasso's service that provided clips of copyrighted network programs to blogs violates the plaintiffs' copyrights in those programs. As a result, Redlasso "announced today that it has no alternative but to suspend blogger access to its video search and clipping Beta site for the immediate future." Redlasso argues that its search and clipping service is not infringing because it makes possible commenting and criticism by bloggers, uses that are fair uses. As Redlasso's press release puts it (pdf):, "The now-suspended Beta site provides bloggers with online broadcast content tools that enables them to exercise their first amendment rights to comment on newsworthy events, by searching blogger-selected TV and radio segments and creating limited duration clips for usage in blog posts."

Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University, argues that Redlasso's position that "it's enabling third-party users to engage in fair use" is not likely to prevail because "[f]air use doesn't provide coverage for the intermediary." Goldman bases his reasoning on UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc., 92 F. Supp. 349 (S.D.N.Y. (2000), in which the court ruled that MP3.com was not engaged in fair use in providing online access to recordings its users already owned CDs of. The court reasoned that "although defendant recites that My.MP3.com provides a transformative 'space shift' by which subscribers can enjoy the sound recordings contained on their CDs without lugging around the physical discs themselves, this is simply another way of saying that the unauthorized copies are being retransmitted in another medium -- an insufficient basis for any legitimate claim of transformation."

The services provided by MP3.com, however, were not entirely analogous to those provided by Redlasso. MP3.com's users were merely using the online recordings for precisely the same purpose as the CDs they already owned: entertainment. Redlasso, on the other hand, provides clips of copyrighted shows for bloggers who, as mentioned above, comment on and criticize those clips. As an intermediary for these legitimate, non-infringing uses, Redlasso may be more like the defendant, an internet search engine, in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2001). Arriba, the defendant, provided online thumbnails of the plaintiff's photographs that were linked to web pages containing those images (much like Google's image search does). The court held that Arriba's use was non-infringing and distinguished MP3.com:

Although Arriba made exact replications of Kelly's images, the thumbnails were much smaller, lower-resolution images that served an entirely different function than Kelly's original images. Kelly's images are artistic works intended to inform and to engage the viewer in an aesthetic experience. His images are used to portray scenes from the American West in an aesthetic manner. Arriba's use of Kelly's images in the thumbnails is unrelated to any aesthetic purpose. Arriba's search engine functions as a tool to help index and improve access to images on the internet and their related web sites. . . .

Kelly [the plaintiff-photographer] asserts that because Arriba reproduced his exact images and added nothing to them, Arriba's use cannot be transformative. Courts have been reluctant to find fair use when an original work is merely retransmitted in a different medium. [citing MP3.com and Infinity Broad. Corp. v. Kirkwood, 150 F.3d 104, 108 (2d Cir. 1998)]. Those cases are inapposite, however, because the resulting use of the copyrighted work in those cases was the same as the original use. For instance, reproducing music CDs in computer MP3 format does not change the fact that both formats are used for entertainment purposes. Likewise, reproducing news footage into a different format does not change the ultimate purpose of informing the public about current affairs.

Arriba Soft, 336 F.3d at 819-820. As with Arriba, Redlasso's clips of network broadcasts are intended for a different purpose than the original broadcast. The blogs that use the clips are not doing so merely to re-broadcast the clips but, rather, to comment on them, a use that is at the core of fair use. Redlasso too is not clipping the entirety of the original programs but, instead, selected segments of them.

Then again, these segments can be used illegitimately for the same purpose as the original clips; without comment or criticism, mere posting of the clips would serve the same purpose to a viewer as wouldt viewing that segment on TV. In that sense, Redlasso is not like Arriba or Google Image Search, which only reproduce low-resolution thumbnails of copyrighted images.

All that is certain to me is that the matter is not as clear as indicated by the quotes from Professor Goldman.

Copyright Ignorance from MTV.com

In connection with yesterday's post about Girl Talk's new album, I can't help but mention today's post on MTV.com by James Montgomery. Montgomery writes of listening to the album while flying on a plane along with L.L. Cool J and wondering:

Song seven on the [Girl Talk] record is called "Like This," and it features, in addition to a whole lot of other things, two very audible samples of LL's "Mama Said Knock You Out," two samples that Girl Talk did not obtain LL's permission to use, which means that they appear in the song illegally, which means that LL is not getting paid for their usage, which would probably make LL very upset if he had any idea that this was happening. (emphasis added.)

Then Montgomery writes that Girl Talk's Greg Willis uses "the concept of 'fair use' to shield himself from any pesky copyright suits."

I can't believe someone from MTV.com is writing on these issues from such a state of ignorance. It's far from certain that what Girl Talk is doing is "illegal," and "fair use" is no "technicality" to shield one from copyright infringement lawsuits. It's one's constitutional right.

And, incidentally, D.J. Danger Mouse has not, as Montgomery implies, "left the [musical collage] genre behind.

Addendum: First, according to Will in the comments, Mr. Montgomery should have known better than to think LL Cool J would've been upset by Girl Talk's appropriation because "LL recently recorded a 'mixtape' called 'Return of the G.O.A.T.' featuring a number of freestyles over uncleared sampled beats."

Second, and more important in trying to determine whether Girl Talk's appropriations constitute fair use, Mr. Montgomery's own evaluation of Girl Talk's music basically makes the case that the use is "transformative" and therefore does constitute fair use. He writes: "[Girl Talk's] new album is so great, the kind of thing that could not have existed 10 years ago, an audio time capsule of the era in which we live. The kind of thing that can inspire post-millennial dilemmas at 37,000 feet."

Then again, inasmuch as Mr. Montgomery is a shill for MTV, and MTV is part of a corporate conglomerate with every interest in hiding the realities of fair use from the public, it should be no surprise that he writes with such ignorance about fair use. Here are some posts to try to begin to bring him up to speed.

Court denies injunction against use of Imagine in film advocating for intelligent design

Last week the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the request for a preliminary injunction by Yoko Ono against further showing and distribution of the movie Expelled, which, as I wrote last month, criticizes evolution, promotes the teaching of intelligent design, and in the process uses 15 seconds of John Lennon's song "Imagine."
In a twenty-three page memorandum opinion and order issued today, the Court held that the producers and distributors of Expelled are likely to prevail on their fair use defense and denied Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in its entirety. As I wrote, If the filmmakers had tried merely "to capitalize on the film as soundtrack material that would be attractive to an audience would likely not be fair use, but, if, as seems likely, the song is quoted to criticize its atheism, that use would likely constitute fair use, regardless of whether Ono finds the users' message objectionable." The court, apparently, thought similar things (citations and footnotes omitted; hyperlink added):

Defendants’ use is transformative because the movie incorporates an excerpt of Imagine for purposes of criticism and commentary. The filmmakers selected two lines of the song that they believe envision a world without religion: “Nothing to kill or die for/ And no religion too.” (“Imagine lyrics, Ex. D to Weber Decl.) As one of the producers of “Expelled” explains, the filmmakers paired these lyrics and the accompanying music to a sequence of images that “provide a layered criticism and commentary of the song.” The Cold War-era images of marching soldiers, followed by the image of Stalin, express the filmmakers’ view that the song’s secular utopian vision “cannot be maintained without realization in a politicized form” and that the form it will ultimately take is dictatorship. The movie thus uses the excerpt of “Imagine” to criticize what the filmmakers see as the naïveté of John Lennon’s views. The excerpt’s location within the movie supports defendants’ assertions. It appears immediately after several scenes of speakers criticizing the role of religion in public life. In his voiceover, Ben Stein then connects these sentiments to the song by stating that they are merely “a page out of John Lennon’s songbook.” In defendants’ view, “Imagine” is a secular anthem caught in a loop of history recycling the same arguments from years past through to the present. We remind our audience that the ideas they just heard expressed from modern interviews and clips that religion is bad are not and have been tried before with disastrous results.” (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 21.) The filmmakers “purposefully positioned the clip . . . between interviews of those who suggest that the world would be better off without religion and an interview suggesting that religion’s commitment to transcendental values place limits on human behavior. . . . mak[ing] the point that societies that permit Darwinism to trump all other authorities, including religion, pose a greater threat to human values than religious belief.” (Id. ¶ 20.)

Defendants’ use of “Imagine” is similar to the use at issue in a recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in which fair use was found, Blanch v. Koons. There, the visual artist Jeff Koons copied photographer Andrea Blanch’s photograph from a fashion magazine without permission and incorporated a portion of it into one of his paintings. 467 F.3d at 247. . . . As in Blanch, defendants here use a portion of “Imagine” as “fodder” for social commentary, altering it to further their distinct purpose. Just as Koons placed a portion of Blanch’s photograph against a new background, defendants here play the excerpt of the song over carefully selected archival footage that implicitly comments on the song’s lyrics. They also pair the excerpt of the song with the views of contemporary defenders of the theory of evolution and juxtapose it with an interview regarding the importance of transcendental values in public life. Plaintiffs contend that defendants’ use of “Imagine” is not transformative because defendants did not alter the song, but simply “cut and paste[d]” it into “Expelled.” As the foregoing discussion illustrates, however, this argument draws the transformative use inquiry too narrowly. To be transformative, it is not necessary that defendants alter the music or lyrics of the song. Indeed, defendants assert that the recognizability of “Imagine” is important to their use of it. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 16.) Defendants’ use is nonetheless transformative because they put the song to a different purpose, selected an excerpt containing the ideas they wished to critique, paired the music and lyrics with images that contrast with the song’s utopian expression, and placed the excerpt in the context of a debate regarding the role of religion in public life. Plaintiffs also contend that defendants’ use of “Imagine” is not transformative because it was unnecessary to use it in order to further the purposes defendants have articulated.

Determining whether a use is transformative, however, does not require courts to
to decide whether it was strictly necessary that it be used. In Blanch, although certainly Koons did not need to use Blanch’s copyrighted photo, as opposed to some other image of a woman’s feet, in his painting, the Second Circuit did not suggest that this lack of necessity weighed against a finding of fair use. Similarly, in Bill Graham Archives, the Second Circuit found a transformative use in the defendants’ unauthorized inclusion of several of the plaintiff’s images—principally concert photos—in a coffee-table book about the musical group the Grateful Dead. 448 F.3d at 607. Although the defendants manifestly could have proceeded without the plaintiff’s , which constituted only a small part of the book, this posed no obstacle to a finding of fair use.

As I said, I think the use of "Imagine" by the filmmakers without permission is legitimate fair use. Nonetheless, Lennon, and "Imagine" in particular, are being misrepresented. Lennon's song imagines a world unpolluted by religious sectarianism, not exactly a radical view in light of the issues of the day. But that's not a view many can find tolerable, even in the U.S. of 2008, and they'll resort to misrepresentation to support their intolerance. Today, the Wall Street Journal ran a story with the headline The Case Against John Lennon. The quote that highlights the column?

Nothing to live or die for — what a nightmare.

Mike Thomas points out that the line is "Nothing to kill or die for" and asks:

What is going on here? Why is the WSJ promoting a column with such a provacative title and using a misquote to mislead readers into a negative reaction against John Lennon? The column itself is a mess. It is poorly written, jumbled and fails to adequately explain how John Lennon or his song “Imagine” has anything to do with what the column appears to be about. Here is the pertinent section that mentions Lennon:

"Mr. Sharansky has a new book, titled Defending Identity. It would be equally accurate to call it The Case Against John Lennon. Or, more specifically, the case against 'Imagine,' Lennon's anthem to a world with 'no countries . . . nothing to kill or die for/And no religion too.' For Mr. Sharansky, a nine-year resident of the Perm 35 prison camp, that's a vision that smacks too much of the professed beliefs of the ex-Beatle's near namesake, Vladimir Ilyich.'

What the hell? Does he think he’s being clever or something? Lennon sounds like Lenin. Get it? So obviously they must be related or they must think alike or something right? Nevermind that “Lenin” was actually an alias for Vladimir Illich Ulyanov, while the surname Lennon dates back hundreds of years to old Ireland.

No, they sound alike so there must be a connection. Right? Kind of like how Obama sounds like Osama so they must be related too. Yeah. That’s the level of reasoning that the column sinks to.

Absolutely pathetic.

And of course he never goes back and explains how V.I. Lenin’s brutal and dictatorial ways have any similarity or correlation to Lennon’s ode to world peace. But fortunately for the cretins who run the WSJ editorial pages, John Lennon is dead and can’t defend his classic work against their asinine columnist’s offhanded smear.

Here's Ken Miller, a biologist from my alma mater speaking at Case Western Reserve University, where I now teach, speaking on intellligent design, evolution, and religion:

A little change can make a great transformation

Henry McKervey and Declan Long, in "Makers and Takers: Art and the Appropriation of Ideas:

[I]t is the expression of an idea which is subject to legal protection. While perhaps this has meant that an artist such as Gillian Wearing can be faced with difficulties over the unattributed re-application of her work, the law also could be said to give artists a relative amount of freedom to take and re-use material in any number of subtly different ways without the spectre of plagiarism remaining ever-present. In a work such as Douglas Gordon's 24 Hour Psycho, for instance, there is in one sense very little of the artist's 'own' work (Hitchcock's classic thriller being merely re-played at a radically slowed-down pace) yet Gordon's intervention makes for a powerful, transformative artistic statement. The question of "knowing originality when you see it" is almost beside the point in cases such as this: artists' strategies of appropriation prompt questions of originality to become thematically intriguing on, one level, while also being critically irrelevant and, on occasion, inappropriate, on another.

The relationship between factor 3 and factors 1 and 4

Some have suggested that even if KLF’s version of K Cera Cera (1) is a genuinely creative and original work (i.e., a “transformative work”) and (2) has no effect on the primary or derivative markets for Que Sera, Sera, the fact that it appropriates virtually all of Que Sera, Sera militates against a finding of fair use. This argument, grounded in the third first use factor – “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole” – is, in essence, as follows:

K Cera Cera could have evoked the meaning it draws from Que Sera, Sera (a distinctly American naïve and fatalistic optimism expressed both in the song’s lyrics and in its identification with Doris Day’s public persona) by simply appropriating one chorus, not the entire work. Since K Cera Cera instead used virtually the entirety of Que Sera, Sera, it fails the third fair use factor and therefore cannot be fair use regardless of its originality and market impact

There quite plainly are statements by courts that the third fair use factor suggests that appropriation of copyrighted works must be limited to the amount necessary to accomplish the purpose of the appropriating work. Thus, for example, in Bill Graham Archives LLC v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 386 F. Supp. 2d 324, 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), the court stated that “[t]his ‘inquiry must focus upon whether “the extent of . . . copying” is consistent with or more than necessary to further 'the purpose and character of the use.’ Castle Rock Enter. v. Carol Publishing Group, 150 F.3d 132, 144 (2d Cir. 1998), citing Campbell, 510 U.S. at 586-87, 114 S. Ct. 1164, 127 L. Ed.2d 500.”

I would suggest, however, that, once if it is conceded that K Cera Cera appropriates the heart of Que Sera, Sera, whether it quotes one verse, half the song, or the entire song is irrelevant as long as K Cera Cera is (1) genuinely transformative and (2) has no impact on Que Sera, Sera’s primary and derivative markets.

If in fact K Cera Cera is genuinely transformative and has no impact on Que Sera, Sera’s markets, it makes no difference to Que Sera, Sera’s copyright holders whether one verse or the entire song is appropriated. If it makes no difference, why should the amount matter?

I think too my view is confirmed by the Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 586 (1994)(emphasis added), in which the Court stated:

The third factor asks whether “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole,” § 107(3) (or, in Justice Story's words, “the quantity and value of the materials used,” Folsom v. Marsh, supra, at 348) are reasonable in relation to the purpose of the copying. Here, attention turns to the persuasiveness of a parodist's justification for the particular copying done, and the enquiry will harken back to the first of the statutory factors, for, as in prior cases, we recognize that the extent of permissible copying varies with the purpose and character *587 of the use. See Sony, supra, 464 U.S., at 449-450, 104 S.Ct., at 792-793 (reproduction of entire work “does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use” as to home videotaping of television programs); Harper & Row, supra, 471 U.S., at 564, 105 S.Ct., at 2232 (“[E]ven substantial quotations might qualify as fair use in a review of a published work or a news account of a speech” but not in a scoop of a soon-to-be-published memoir). The facts bearing on this factor will also tend to address the fourth, by revealing the degree to which the parody may serve as a market substitute for the original or potentially licensed derivatives. See Leval 1123.

Finally, I know of no case holding that a work constituted an infringement based on the appropriation of too great a portion of the copyrighted material in which that appropriation did not have an impact on the markets for the copyrighted work. Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985), and Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1987), are two examples of such cases. In both, the infringing use plainly hurt the copyrighted work’s primary market. In Harper & Row, The Nation published the chapter of President Ford’s autobiography that discussed his pardon of Richard Nixon. Since the public had by far more interest in that aspect of Ford’s life than any other, the publication hurt the sales of the autobiography. Why buy the book when the magazine gives you everything you’re interested in at a much lower price? In Salinger, a biography quoted long portions of J.D. Salinger’s letters. The infringement was not merely a result of the fact the excerpts from the letters far exceeded what was necessary to supporting the book’s biographical points. It was because there was an audience of Salinger fans so hungry for any new writing by Salinger (who had not published a word since 1965) that they would buy the book simply to read new Salinger. The biography, in short, was exploiting Salinger’s primary market for his own copyrighted works.

The implications of allowing creative appropriation art

In Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006)(pdf), the Second Circuit did seem to adopt a version of the reasoning in the preceding post: a work that appropriates the heart of another copyrighted work constitutes fair use as long as it (1) is a genuinely creative work and (2) does not exploit a market created by the copyrighted work. As previously noted on this blog, the Second Circuit concluded that Koons' painting, Niagara, passed the "transformative test" “almost perfectly” because Koons changed the original copyrighted picture’s “colors, the background against which it is portrayed, the medium, the size of the objects pictured, their details.” Also, and “crucially,” Koons’s painting had an “entirely different purpose and meaning – as part of a massive painting commissioned for exhibition in a German art-gallery space.” Thus, the court concluded, “[t]he question is whether Koons had a genuine creative rationale for borrowing Blanch’s image, rather than using it merely to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh.” The court, of course, concluded Koons did have such a genuine creative rationale.

Obviously, too, the court had to conclude that Niagara had no impact on the market for the original copyrighted photo Koons had appropriated. Reaching that conclusion in Blanch v. Koons was easy; Koons' painting was directed at a market for fine art that bore little economic relationship to the market at which the original photograph was aimed -- commercial advertising. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994), the Supreme Court did not actually find that 2 Live Crew's parody of Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" constituted fair use. Rather, Justice Souter required the trial court on remand to determine whether or not 2 Live Crew's song had an impact on the primary or derivative markets for Roy Orbison's song:

In explaining why the law recognizes no derivative market for critical works, including parody, we have, of course, been speaking of the later work as if it had nothing but a critical aspect (i.e., "parody pure and simple," supra, at 22). But the later work may have a more complex character, with effects not only in the arena of criticism but also in protectable markets for derivative works, too. In that sort of case, the law looks beyond the criticism to the other elements of the work, as it does here. 2 Live Crew's song comprises not only parody but also rap music, and the derivative market for rap music is a proper focus of enquiry, see Harper & Row, 471 U.S., at 568 ; Nimmer 13.05[B]. Evidence of substantial harm to it would weigh against a finding of fair use, because the licensing of derivatives is an important economic incentive to the creation of originals. See 17 U.S.C. 106(2) (copyright owner has rights to derivative works). Of course, the only harm to derivatives that need concern us, as discussed above, is the harm of market substitution. The fact that a parody may impair the market for derivative uses by the very effectiveness of its critical commentary is no more relevant under copyright than the like threat to the original market.

Although 2 Live Crew submitted uncontroverted affidavits on the question of market harm to the original, neither they nor Acuff-Rose introduced evidence or affidavits addressing the likely effect of 2 Live Crew's parodic rap song on the market for a non-parody, rap version of "Oh, Pretty Woman." And while Acuff-Rose would have us find evidence of a rap market in the very facts that 2 Live Crew recorded a rap parody of "Oh, Pretty Woman" and another rap group sought a license to record a rap derivative, there was no evidence that a potential rap market was harmed in any way by 2 Live Crew's parody, rap version. The fact that 2 Live Crew's parody sold as part of a collection of rap songs says very little about the parody's effect on a market for a rap version of the original, either of the music alone or of the music with its lyrics. The District Court essentially passed on this issue, observing that Acuff-Rose is free to record "whatever version of the original it desires," 754 F.Supp., at 1158; the Court of Appeals went the other way by erroneous presumption. Contrary to each treatment, it is impossible to deal with the fourth factor except by recognizing that a silent record on an important factor bearing on fair use disentitled the proponent of the defense, 2 Live Crew, to summary judgment. The evidentiary hole will doubtless be plugged on remand.

(citations and footnotes omitted).

In this day and age, a day and age that literally is no more than 2 to 5 years old, the implications of the Second Circuit's decision in Blanch v. Koons are potentially profound and problematic. The technological ease of ease of creating pieces of "appropriation art" and instantly disseminating them worldwide means that we will have an infinite number of creations that beg the question: do they affect the primary or derivative markets of the copyrighted works they appropriate? Could the courts (or any other institution) possibly cope with the burden of making those decisions?

Where is the line between derivative and transformative works

Could it be that the line between a derivative piece of appropriation art and a transformative one (i.e., the line between infringement and fair use) is defined by whether the allegedly infringing work is (1) creative and (2) does not exploit a market created by the original work?

In other words, a commercial work can appropriate the heart (or even the entirety) of a copyrighted work without infringing the copyright if it (1) is a genuinely creative work and (2) does not exploit a market created by the copyrighted work.

The Seinfeld trivia book challenged in Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, 150 F.3d 132 (2nd Cir. 1998), failed on both counts: (1) it was a collection of "facts" derived from Seinfeld and simply rearranged (much like the telephone directory in Feist) and (2) it was directed at fans of the Seinfeld show, a market the show had created and had therefore had the exclusive right to exploit.

"Priceless" political expression

In Master Card Int'l Inc. v. Nader 2000 Campaign Committee, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3644, *42, 70 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1046, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28,781 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), the court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Ralph Nader's 2000 Presidential Campaign Committee, and dismissed plaintiff Mastercard's lawsuit, which alleged, among other things, that a Nader campaign add that borrowed heavily from Mastercard's "priceless moments" television ads infringed on Mastercard's copyright in those ads. The court concluded:

The Nader Ad does add something new and qualifies as a "transformative" work. Whether it "comments" on the original is the issue in question. MasterCard's message depicted in its Priceless Advertisements is very plain and straightforward. In a series of advertisements, MasterCard presents various intangible moments that are highly valuable, yet unable to be "purchased" or are "priceless." Hence, "there are some things that money can't buy." This idea is followed by the message, that the viewer-consumer can purchase everything else with their MasterCard credit card--"for everything else, there's MasterCard." Ralph Nader's Political Ad attempts to show various ways [*43] different Presidential candidates can be bought in the "big-money arena of Presidential politics" (Def's Mem. in Supp. Summ. J. 27) and contrasts the "priceless" truth represented by Ralph Nader as the remedy for the bought and paid for positions of others. Through this depiction, Ralph Nader argues that he not only sends across his own message, but that he wittingly comments on the craft of the original, "which cloaks its materialistic message in warm, sugar-coated imagery that purports to elevate intangible values over the monetary values it in fact hawks." Id. This commentary "may reasonably be perceived." The message need not be popular nor agreed with. It may be subtle rather than obvious. It need only be reasonably perceived. Ralph Nader's Political Ad is sufficiently a parody for the purposes of a fair use analysis, and consequently, is transformative. (footnote omitted)

William Patry on political expression using copyrighted works.

According to the March 7, 2008 edition of the Courts Consumer Electronics Daily, Judge Pierre Leval, speaking on the Wednesday just two weeks ago at the State Bar of California's annual Copyright Office Comes to California event in San Francisco, explained that the lower courts had been making a mess out of the fair use doctrine

until Justice David Souter's "magnificent opinion in Campbell v. Acuff Rose" in 1994, Leval said. The ruling followed Leval's analysis in explaining that the key questions in fair use are whether a work accused of infringing has a "different objective" from the plaintiff's, and so is "transformative," and whether it competes with the original work, the judge said. The fair-use debate is polarized between "extremist points of view," including a copyright-enforcement "protectionist" position that criticizes Campbell and the 9th Circuit decision in Perfect 10 v. Google as protecting "perfect copies as fair use," Leval said. Perfect 10, which allowed Google to present searchers with thumbnail versions of Perfect 10 photos of naked women, has been called "a triumph of the mind sound bite over reasoned analysis," but "to the contrary," it's "a truly thoughtful and reasoned opinion," he said. Of course an exact a copy can be a fair use, Leval said: Otherwise, a museum wouldn't be free to use small copies of famous paintings like the Mona Lisa on wall signs and floor maps to send visitors to the originals. Newspapers have to be able to publish images of stolen paintings, and publishers must be able to decide whether they lawfully can distribute investigative articles by looking at them, without determining whether a writer used the deceit sometimes needed to get copyrighted documents to write them, he said. "The free expression camp" at the other end of the spectrum also is off-base in contending that copy-making should be protected unconditionally as freedom of speech, Leval said. Getting rid of copyright would "fatally damage" creation, he said. Even "moderates" make "exaggerated" complaints that the standards for fair use are too loose to make outcomes predictable enough, Leval said. A shifting terrain is bound to create some uncertainty, but "bright line" rules might not be worth the bad results they would produce, he said. (hyper links added)

Judge Pierre Leval on what constitutes a transformative use

From the Patry Copyright Blog:

In 1990, Judge Pierre Leval wrote his path breaking article, "Toward a Fair Use Standard," 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1111 (1990), in which he proposed the term "transformative use,":"The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. A quotation of copyrighted material that merely repackages or republishes the original is unlikely to pass the test; in Justice Story's words, it would merely "supersede the objects" of the original. If, on the other hand, the secondary use adds value to the original -- if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings -- this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society. Transformative uses may include criticizing the quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or summarizing an idea argued in the original in order to defend or rebut it. They also may include parody, symbolism, aesthetic declarations, and innumerable other uses."

Nothing substitutes for Leval's article, of course, but Fairly Useful summarizes it well and opines that the article "should be seen as the doctrinal foundation fair use jurisprudence since in the" post-Campbell v. Acuff Rose era.

Parody, Satire, Transformative Use, and Derivative Works

Available here is a discussion regarding the distinctions courts have attempted to draw between parody and satire in fair use cases. The discussion is excerpted from Andrew S. Long, Mashed up Videos and Broken Down Copyright: Changing Copyright to Promote the First Amendment Values of Transformative Video, 60 Okla. L. Rev. 317, 335-559 (Summer 2007).