Fair Use Fridays: Kutiman Mashes Jerusalem - Beautifully

More beautiful music and images here

http://www.dunnington.com/rdowd_bio.html
 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here  

Fair Use Fridays: Jay-Z Public Service Annoucement

Not sure what the public service is exactly, but this is certainly a creative interpretation of copyright law's  fair use doctrine.  17 USC 107.

More on copyright law's fair use doctrine here.

http://www.dunnington.com/rdowd_bio.html
 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here  

Fair Use Fridays: Charlie Sheen's Downfall

Even funnier, Hitler's Reaction to Charlie Sheen Getting Two and a Half Men Cancelled



 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here  

Fair Use Fridays: Is The National Anthem A Stolen British Drinking Song?

Rocketboom and Know Your Meme discuss in the video above the history of GI Joe Mashups on the internet and apply the principles of fair use in copyright law to our National Anthem.

From Wikipedia's Star Spangled Banner entry:

The poem was set to the tune of a popular British drinking song, written by John Stafford Smith for the Anacreontic Society, a men's social club in London. "The Anacreontic Song" (or "To Anacreon in Heaven"), with various lyrics, was already popular in the United States. Set to Key's poem and renamed "The Star-Spangled Banner", it would soon become a well-known American patriotic song. With a range of one and a half octaves, it is known for being difficult to sing. Although the song has four stanzas, only the first is commonly sung today, with the fourth ("O! thus be it ever when free men shall stand...") added on more formal occasions. The fourth stanza includes the line "And this be our motto: In God is our Trust.".[2] The United States adopted "In God We Trust" as its national motto in 1956.




 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here  

Fair Use Fridays: 5 Seconds of Every Pop Song Ever

Five Seconds Of Every #1 Pop Single Part 1 by mjs538

Thanks to Peter Friedman's Ruling Imagination: Law and Creativity for posting this here from MJS538, find part two on Soundcloud.

 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here  

Fair Use Fridays: Jailbreaking Your Cell Phone is Legal - Maybe Some Mashups, Too

On July 20, 2010, the Librarian of Congress came out with regulations making jailbreaking of cell phones exempt from the prohibitions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.  17 USC 1201. Bypassing DVD protections to make a "criticism or comment" is, too.

A summary from the Copyright Office of the regs is italicized below.

A copy of the regulation here 

Recommendations of the Register of Copyrights here

Statement on Rulemaking of the Librarian of Congress here

It is important to note that just because it is not a violation of the DMCA to break into a DVD and take a piece of a motion picture for purposes of criticism or commentary, this does not means that what you take from the DVD will necessarily be a FAIR USE.

To determine whether your new use is fair, you will still have to satisfy the four factor test of the fair use doctrine.   For more on the fair use doctrine, embodied in 17 USC 107 look here.

Can someone please explain to me how it is LEGAL to put technological blocks in smartphones that destroy interoperability?   Isn't this anticompetitive, anti-consumer, illegal tying by monopolists and oligopolists?   If I buy a phone, shouldn't I be free to take a signal from whomever I like?

Tim Wu raises the issue in The Master Switch, reviewed here.

How mashups led to Hitler's Downfall, look here.

The Librarian of Congress has announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) until the conclusion of the next rulemaking.


(1) Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:


(i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
(ii) Documentary filmmaking;
(iii) Noncommercial videos.


(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.


(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.

(4) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if:

(i) The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and
(ii) The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law.


(5) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace; and


(6) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.

Background


The Copyright Office is conducting this rulemaking proceeding mandated by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which provides that the Librarian of Congress may exempt certain classes of works from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works.


The purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether there are particular classes of works as to which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make noninfringing uses due to the prohibition on circumvention of access controls. This page contains links to published documents in this proceeding.

The Notice of Inquiry in this fourth anticircumvention rulemaking requests written comments from all interested parties, including representatives of copyright owners, educational institutions, libraries and archives, scholars, researchers and members of the public, in order to elicit evidence on whether noninfringing uses of certain classes of works are, or are likely to be, adversely affected by this prohibition on the circumvention of measures that control access to copyrighted works.

The entire records of the previous anticircumvention rulemakings are available. The first rulemaking took place in 2000. The second was in 2003. The third was in 2006.

Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here  

Fair Use Fridays: Hitler phones Mubarak

More from the Hitler Downfall Parodies Channel
 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here 

Fair Use Fridays: Mashup of Billboard Top 25 on YouTube

DJ Earworm is back, this 2010 mashup had over nine million viewers on YouTube.


This DJ Earworm 2009 mashup had over 34 million viewers on YouTube.

More posts on mashups here
 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here  

Copyright Law: Fair Use Fridays - Kutiman Mixes YouTube - The Mother of All Funk Chords

Copyright law's fair use doctrine is embedded in 17 USC 107, which provides:

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use



Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [a copyright owner's exclusive rights to publish and distribute copyrighted works] , the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

The four "fair use" factors require a fact intensive analysis.   So what do you think of Kutiman's mashup/remix of videos he found on YouTube (video below)?  Cool?  Yes.  Fair use?  You decide, and check out Kutiman's other "Thru You videos on YouTube here.

Kutiman's thru-you.comhttp://thru-you.com/ says:  "Check out the credits for each video - you might find yourself".

Yes, another way for America to find itself.  Will Kutiman be YouTube's Andy Warhol, doling out 15 seconds of fame to the famous and not-so-famous?

 HT to Mike Masnick of Techdirt.

More Copyright Litigation Blog posts on the fair use doctrine here.

Copyright Litigation Blog reporting on Max Papeschi and the continuing NaziSexyMouse controversy here.  Pamela Geller, author of Atlas Shrugs Blog (and author of The Obama Administration's War on America's post "The left owns western culture. Music, media, arts.  Where does the road of leftism lead?  To hell." Full post here.  That's a relief! Up until now, everyone was thinking that NaziSexyMouse was a vast right wing conspiracy.



Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook from West here

CDCA: Politico's Use of Henley Songs Copyright Infringement - Not Fair Use

In Henley v. Devore (SACV 09-481) the Central District of California doled out a "sort of rough justice" and found that a politician whose campaign got a little crazy with a karaoke machine and a mashup campaign video engaged in copyright infringement.  On June 10, 2010, summary judgment was granted, decision below.

All She Wants To Do Is Tax

They’re pickin’ up the taxpayers and
puttin’ ‘em in a jam
And all she wants to do is tax, tax
Liberals been liberals since I don’t know
when
They’re pickin’ up the taxpayers and
puttin’ ‘em in a jam
And all she wants to do is tax, tax
Liberals been liberals since I don’t know
when
Well, we barely made twenty ten, the vote
was in doubt
And we finished up the campaign she
could hear the people shout
They said, “Don’t come back here
Boxer!”
But if she ever does – we’ll bring more
money
‘Cause all she wants to do is tax
and break our backs
Never mind the heat comin’ off the street
She wants to party
She wants to get down
All she wants to do is –
All she wants to do is tax
All she wants to do is tax and break our
backs
All she wants to do is tax

From the decision (page 24):

“The [fair use] doctrine has been said to be ‘so flexible as virtually to defy definition.’” Princeton Univ. Press v. Mich. Document Servs., Inc., 99 F.3d 1381, 1392 (6th Cir. 1996) (quoting Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Assocs., 293 F. Supp. 130, 144 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)). The case-by-case analysis resists bright-line determinations and the resulting decisions inevitably represent a sort of rough justice.

After you read the decision, drop down for a genius mashup video of Sarah Palin yodeling for taxes.  Note to file: yodeling and Sarah Palin is fair use, but Don Henley Barbara Boxer ain't.  Since no one can define "fair use" - justice is really rough these days.

I am one of the few that think electioneering is core political speech that is really really tough to trump and I note that the political history of our nation was forged by anonymous mudslingers slinging every conceivable mockery at one another.  The Supreme Court's jurisprudence on political speech supports this view. 

I think that the district court erred because a politician's campaign video is not commercial speech (see p 18), even though the politicians want $$$$.  In politics, the Supreme Court has ruled that money = speech.   This I believe is at the core of the whole Obama/Hope poster drama, if you look at my posts on Shepard Fairey, it is explained there.

But I been a liberal since I don't know when.
CDCA: No Fair Use - Politico Infringed Don Henley Copyrights




Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook from West here  

Synchronizing Art to a Sound Recording: Do Financial Incentives Demotivate Creativity and Problem Solving?

HT to Mike Masnick of Techdirt.  Not only is Dan Pink's video by RSA Animate (embedded below) thought-provoking and relevant to whether or not money stimulates creative activity.  It is also relevant to the core purpose of the Copyright Act and arguments raised in defense of draconian copyright: whether or if financial incentives stimulate creativity.  Studies by the Federal Reserve and MIT raise the question of whether financial incentives actually decrease creativity.

Anyone trying to get more productivity out of an organization without spending more money ought to take these studies very seriously.

Far Copyleft folks see copyrighted works as mere free raw materials for creating new works.  The far Copyright folks see a copyrighted work as a sacred, inviolable and untouchable iconic thing that may only be accessed when, how, for how long and as often as the copyright owner dictates.

Far Copyright folks see a copyright as a complete monopoly from which windfall profits are to be extracted every time a new technology emerges to make a consumer's old licensed copy of a work obsolete or every time a consumer wants to use or dispose of the copy as he or she sees fit. The first sale doctrine lets us resell a car we've purchased without paying the manufacturer. Restraints on the alienation of property are disfavored in the common law because this blocks free economic activity.

Should we have to pay a German copyright holder because we want to make fun of Hitler using the German copyright holder's ridiculously earnest economic exploitation of the Hitler theme in the film Downfall? Or does the exploiter of a theme have to take crap from people who want to laugh at them or laugh at sometimes serious, sometimes silly themes using them?

The issue I think was wrongly decided in Dr. Seuss v. Penguin Books, a Ninth Circuit case decided in 1997.  Here is how the court handled the issue of parody?
It is the rule in this Circuit that though the satire need not be only of the copied work and may . . . also be a parody of modern society, the copied work must be, at least in part, an object of the parody, otherwise there would be no need to conjure up the original work. . . . By requiring that the copied work be an object of the parody, we merely insist that the audience be aware that underlying the parody there is an original and separate expression, attributable to a different artist.

* * *
We now turn our attention to The Cat NOT in the Hat! itself. The first two pages present a view of Los Angeles, with particular emphasis on the connection with Brentwood, given the depiction of the news camera lights. The story begins as follows:



A happy town Inside L.A. Where rich folks play The day away.
But under the moon The 12th of June. Two victims flail Assault! Assail! Somebody will go to jail!
Who will it be? Oh my! Oh me!


The third page reads: "One Knife? / Two Knife? / Red Knife / Dead Wife." This stanza no doubt mimics the first poem in Dr. Seuss' One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish: "One fish / two fish / red fish / blue fish. Black fish / blue fish / old fish / new fish." For the next eighteen pages, Katz writes about Simpson's trip to Chicago, the noise outside Kato Kaelin's room, the bloody glove found by Mark Fuhrman, the Bronco chase, the booking, the hiring of lawyers, the assignment of Judge Ito, the talk show interest, the comment on DNA, and the selection of a jury. On the hiring of lawyers for Simpson, Katz writes:


A plea went out to Rob Shapiro Can you save the fallen hero? And Marcia Clark, hooray, hooray Was called in with a justice play.
A man this famous Never hires Lawyers like Jacoby-Meyers. When you're accused of a killing scheme You need to build a real Dream Team.
Cochran! Cochran! Doodle-doo Johnnie, won't you join the crew? Cochran! Cochran! Deedle-dee The Dream Team needs a victory.
These stanzas and the illustrations simply retell the Simpson tale. Although The Cat NOT in the Hat! does broadly mimic Dr. Seuss' characteristic style, it does not hold his style up to ridicule. The stanzas have "no critical bearing on the substance or style of" The Cat in the Hat. Katz and Wrinn merely use the Cat's stove-pipe hat, the narrator ("Dr. Juice), and the title (The Cat NOT in the Hat! ) "to get attention" or maybe even "to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh." Acuff-Rose, 114 S. Ct. at 1172. While Simpson is depicted 13 times in the Cat's distinctively scrunched and somewhat shabby red and white stove-pipe hat, the substance and content of The Cat in the Hat is not conjured up by the focus on the Brown-Goldman murders or the O.J. Simpson trial. Because there is no effort to create a transformative work with "new expression, meaning, or message," the infringing work's commercial use further cuts against the fair use defense. 9 Id. at 1171.


So if I want to draw former President George W. Bush as Mickey Mouse and parody him by placing him in a Mickey/Minnie scenario, by this logic Disney can stop me from engaging in this core political speech because I am not making fun of Mickey, only of the former President.

How to permit political speech, promote creativity and maximize economic welfare for both copyright creators and society in general are questions implicated in these debates, with the cultural pendulum slowly swinging towards the Remix culture camp. There are a few signs that legal culture is moving in that direction, with judges taking a more expansive view of fair use.

When the Copyright Society had its convention in New Orleans a few years back, I was struck by the plight of Jazz musicians: they didn't have the right to a compulsory license.   So a bunch of white kids doing an exact cover of a Led Zep tune can force Led Zep to license the song at a cheap rate.  

But Jazz - which remixes, rearranges and is an art form that is derivative - can't get a compulsory license, and the changes and modifications to the original can't be protected without an additional license from the copyright owner - even though a sound recording in a cover song can.

According to the jazz musicians, the licensing practices of copyright owners have put them out of making a living and basically strangled their creativity.  It was a heartbreaking presentation. Jazz and its successors which rely on sampling, borrowing, remixing - all activities emanating from African-American traditions - have been severely penalized, to the point of practical extinction.




The Remix movie- with a white kid p/k/a Girl Talk at its center - shows how new technologies open up new creative possibilities.   And as white kids start looking to play a kind of American jazz with video, it is more likely that the courts will be more reluctant to penalize and criminalize that activity.

The video below is also a great example of using art to make a sound recording come alive through a new layer of creative labor.



 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook from West here 

Fair Use Fridays: Peanuts Hey Ya

Note the credits: "used without permission - please don't sue us".   This is a genius video and if Outkast is letting it survive (note the "buy this song" ad from Amazon), more credit to them.

Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook from West here

Hitler Asserts His Postmortem Rights of Publicity

Not the fake Hitler, the real one, showing why copyright should not last forever and why rights of publicity should die with the person.

Fair Use Fridays - Girl Talk - Overtime

Music and video sampling - pushing the limits of fair use?

Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters in a Mashup

Mashup: Arizona's Governor Urges Politicians To Read Immigration Law

Nice example of ripping the faces of politicians and mashing them to music.  This is what Arizona is spending its tax money on?  If you learn how to read, you will want to throw away the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures?

Thanks to http://www.gather.com/

Fair Use Friday: How To Create A Music Mashup - Girl Talk

How To Save a Hitler Downfall Video: Challenge a YouTube Take Down with Fair Use - EFF PSA

Some practical advice for those making fun of Hitler and exploring the boundaries of fair use and the First Amendment.  Note: this is not legal advice.

Remixing Videos Without Permission: Remix Culture - Analysis of Mashups in American Culture

Comment on Copyfight about a great video on Remix culture, Youtube and the battle for creative control over American culture.  Watch it.

Quoting Copyrighted Material In User-Generated Videos

If you represent someone who has gotten into trouble over making YouTube videos, there is an interesting and provocative report out by the Center for Social Media called "Recut, Reframe, Recycle: Quoting Copyrighted Material in User-Generated Video." You might want to make it part of your defense case, or at least try to use it in early settlement discussions.

From the title, you can get a sense of how the authors view fair use: copyright hardliners use the word "stealing" instead of quoting. The Report reviews the types of uses of copyrighted works in online videos:

- parody and satire
- negative or critical commentary
- positive commentary
- quoting to trigger discussion
- illustration or example
- incidental use
- personal reportage or diaries
- archiving of vulnerable or revealing materials
- pastiche or collage

The Report distinguishes people who simply make copies of popular and widely available copyrighted works and simply forward them for fun. We all agree that's stealing and will get you in trouble.

The Report makes reference to many videos available on YouTube, many of them interesting and funny. It is clear that the writers of the report believe that this video revolution is a good thing, and I agree with their assessment that this is the type of activity that the copyright laws were meant to encourage. I am glad that they are doing what they are doing and think that they did an excellent job with the Documentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use. I am not as certain that the general proposition that "'quoting copyrighted works of popular culture to illustrate an argument or point' can be fair use" has been entirely vindicated by the courts since 2005, and to the extent that it has, there is lingering contrary authority out there that may be used to trap the unwary.

The case cited as a "prime example" is Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006). It is the only case cited in the Report. That case involved a book published using a small image of a Grateful Dead concert ticket on a timeline illustrating the Grateful Dead's history. It was the only use in the entire book.

Another excellent example of "quoting" being permitted is Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006), which involved artist Jeff Koons using a photograph of a woman's foot from a fashion magazine in a collage painting. But this "quoting" story has a sad ending: the artist got stuck with a million-dollar bill for legal fees even though he was successful in defending his work from a copyright claim. On May 9, 2007, Judge Stanton decided in Blanch v. Koons, 485 F. Supp.2d 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) that Koons would be stuck paying his own legal fees:

This case involves an "appropriation" artist. Appropriation artists take other artists' work and use it in their own art, appropriating it and incorporating it in their own product with or without changes. Because of this appropriation, often (as in this case) done without giving credit to the original artist, the appropriation artists can expect that their work may attract lawsuits. They must accept the risks of defense, including the time, effort, and expenses involved. While that does not remove the appropriation artist from the protection of the statute, litigation is a risk he knowingly incurs when he copies the other's work.That is particularly the case with defendant Koons, who was aware of these risks from his personal experience in Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir.1992) and other cases arising from an earlier work "in which Koons slavishly recreated a copyrighted work in a different medium without any objective indicia of transforming it or commenting on the copyrighted work." Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d at 262 (Katzmann, J., concurring). As Judge Katzmann stated in his concurring opinion on the appeal in this case (id. at 263): This is our Circuit's second encounter with Koons' work. His work, like that of other appropriation artists, inherently raises difficult questions about the proper scope of copyright protection and the fair-use doctrine. I would continue to answer those questions as necessary to decide particular cases, mindful that the fair-use inquiry is a fact-specific one that is "not to be simplified with bright-line rules." Campbell, 510 U.S. at 577, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 127 L.Ed.2d 500.This case, as well as the fact-specific issue of fair use on which it was ultimately decided, had other distinctive aspects. Most striking was the fact that Blanch did not suffer any damages. She did not suffer, nor sue to recoup, a monetary loss. When she first saw the portion of her work displayed in Koons's painting, her immediate reaction was one of gratification. If Koons had offered Blanch a fee for using her art, it typically would have been $750 or less. Koons's painting did not interfere with any of Blanch's intended uses of her photograph, nor decrease its value. And there were issues other than fair use in the case. Defendants' motions for summary judgment also rested on the statute of limitations, claimed non-infringement due to lack of substantial similarity, and unavailability of punitive damages as a matter of law.The Court of Appeals' primary and concurring opinions, with headnotes and exhibits, require nineteen pages in the 467 F.3d report: pp. 244-263. Defendants' fee application demonstrates their belief that the defense of the case merited well over $1 million in attorneys' fees, including more than $24,000 for computer research.[4] Applying the Fogerty factors as a guide to discretion in this unusual case, one can say that (1) it was not facially frivolous, (2) Blanch's motivation was reasonable, although it was less to recoup a monetary loss than to punish an artist who seemed to have embarked on a series of appropriations of others' work without credit or payment, (3) the legal precedents regarding Koons's work looked favorable, and (4) the particular circumstances do not demonstrate a need for imposition of fees as a deterrent to such suits. On the whole, this is not a case calling for an exercise of discretion in favor of granting attorneys' fees.[5]

Blanch v. Koons 485 F.Supp.2d 516, 518 (S.D.N.Y.,2007). I think the subtext here is that the Judge probably feels that Koons is highly successful and profits immensely from these controversies, win or lose, whereas Blanch is a working photographer whose lawyer probably got carried away. In an earlier decision, the court noted that she had never resold any of her photographs, which appeared in Allure magazine.

The fact that many of the people making YouTube mashups are not making money at it or doing it as hobbyists is probably the most important factor in gauging the dangers lurking in these "do it yourself" videos. A couple of the examples seemed to be corporate-created or used as vehicles to highlight a product or carry advertising. That is going to be the flash-point of the future.

If this is depressing to fair use proponents, a great case to mention is Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods., 353 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003), involving the Danish band Acqua's hit "Barbie Girl". In that case, the artist recouped his legal fees since Mattel kept suing him in violation of his First Amendment rights.

A good case on "quoting" copyrighted works is Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com Inc., 487 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2007) which found that making thumbnail low resolution copies of entire photographic works for a video search engine was "highly transformative".

But there is some very very bad precedent out there. Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997) involved a television production that had a poster in a background shot. The poster was made by the High Museum in Atlanta. On the poster was an image of artist Faith Ringgold's Quilt. In the television show, the poster was never clearly visible, one could see up to 80% of it in the background during scenes of about 20 seconds. The district court found the use "de minimus". The Second Circuit reversed and held that there is no "de minimus" exception to the Copyright Act.

Dr. Seuss Enter., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997) cert. dismissed 521 U.S. 1146 (1997) is a very bad parody case. A parody called "The Cat Not In the Hat" was removed from the market by Dr. Seuss. The court felt that the author was only using Dr. Seuss to make fun of O.J. and was not making enough fun of Dr. Seuss to qualify as speech protected by the First Amendment. By the same reasoning, I can't put on Mickey Mouse ears and make fun of President Bush because I am not directly making fun of Mickey.

There are also some very mean copyright and trademark owners out there, lots of takedown notices and serious financial threats. For people who have to pay their lawyers and worry about losing their homes, exploring the boundaries of free speech is fraught with perils.

When I tried to click on some of the links to the videos cited in the Center for Social Media's Report, I found that they were links to YouTube that had been taken down. Why didn't they just copy them from YouTube and host those copies on their server? If "quoting" these works is key to understanding the Center for Social Media's work, and I think it is, they should rip them from YouTube, copy them, preserve them and make them available to scholars of the future.