One of the more crazy aspects of the copyright system here in good old America is this notion of Fair Use. The United States is one of very few countries in the world that has a strict legal set of guidelines for how and when you can use a copyrighted work for your own uses, and last month those guidelines got a little bit more clearly defined thanks to the Cariou v. Prince case (BoingBoing Article).
To sum it up, Prince remixed (or altered) Cariou’s photographs and then sold them. Cariou felt that this use did not fall under Fair Use, specifically that the remixes did not comment on the original works or photographer in any way. The case was taken before district courts where they ruled in favor of Cariou, that the works should be taken down as they were in violation of Cariou’s copyright. However, when the case moved to the Appeals Court, they had a different opinion. For all but 5 remixed photos, they ruled that Prince’s work falls under Fair Use. However, the court wanted to make clear that “Our conclusion should not be taken to suggest, however, that any cosmetic changes to the photographs would necessarily constitute fair use” (Mondaq Article).
This has set a standard that remixes do not have to always be a comment on the originals or their authors. This has a huge impact, especially in the music industry. Artists trying to remix or parody and satire music have been fighting an uphill battle trying to get their works considered Fair Use. The system isn’t exactly perfect, but this might be a step towards more sensible Copyright exceptions. Perhaps future cases will continue to bring small changes to how the courts decide what is and isn’t illegal.
No comments:
Post a Comment