Does fair use supersede the permission of copyright holders? Fair use seems inherently contradictory. I need help understanding the exact context. According to copyright, you need permission to use intellectual property but fair use says you don't need permission as long as you use the work under specific circumstances. Hypothetically, if a copyright terms explicitly stated it cannot be used by others and at the same time someone used this specific copyrighted content without permission in a context that matches the criteria of fair use, would the doctrine of fair use supersede the copyright?
Almost all works recorded in some fixed way that are not a couple of hundred years old or created by a government agency are protected by copyright. In the absence of an exception to the general rule, copying a work that is protected by copyright is copyright infringement, which can be a basis for the copyright owner to sue the infringer. This can also be a basis for criminal liability is certain additional elements are proved and a prosecutor proves a case of copyright infringement in a criminal case. But, there are some important exceptions to this general rule of what constitutes legally sanctionable copyright infringement. The most important exceptions to the general rule have the character of affirmative defenses. In order words, if someone sued for copyright infringement and the person sued admits that they copied the copyright protected work, they can use these exceptions to avoid having legal liability. One of the exceptions is the permission from the copyright owner to use the copyright work. This can be either in the form of affirmatively given permission to use the copyrighted work in a particular way (called an &quot;express license&quot; to use the copyrighted work), or in the form of permission to use the copyrighted work that can be inferred from context (called an &quot;implied license&quot; to use the copyrighted work). Another of the main exceptions is &quot;fair use&quot;. If the way a copy of a copyrighted work is used constitutes fair use, the person using the copyrighted work without an express or implied license to do so it not liable for copyright infringement. Of course, while you don't need more than one exception to the general rule to avoid liability for copyright infringement, you can have more than one. For example, you can use copyrighted work in a way that would constitute &quot;fair use&quot; and not give rise to liability for that reason if you were sued, even if you can't be sued anyway because you already have been given permission by the owner of the copyright to use the copyright in the way that you did. It isn't a case of a contradiction. It is a case of a general rule that has exceptions.
Yes. For example, corporations can own copyright. They may own copyright after assignment (this is true across much of the commonwealth and in the U.S.). In some jurisdictions, when a work is made for hire, the employer may be deemed the author and initial owner (e.g. U.S.) or just the initial owner (e.g. Canada).
No, one cannot safely assume that because some people have done a thing without being sued, that it is OK to do a similar thing and no suit is possible. It is possible that people who upload a video, or a section of it, have permission. It is perhaps more likely that the copyright owner does not choose to sue, for whatever reason. But a different owner of a different video might make a different choice. Uploading a video, or even a section of a video, without permission, will be copyright infringement, unless an exception to copyright such as fair use or fair dealing applies. Such an infringement gives the copyright owner valid grounds to bring a suit. But the owner can choose whether or not to sue. An owner can sue in one case of infringement but not in another, for any reason or none. If the expected damages are small, it many not be worth the time, trouble, and costs to sue. In the US, one must register a copyright before bringing suit for infringement of that copyright, and there is a fee for registration. Some owners feel strongly about the use of their work, and will sue on any pretext. Some may prefer to tacitly support uses that they approve of by not bringing suit. One cannot tell the attitude of a particular owner unless that owner has stated what his or her view is. Short films are just as protected as full-length feature films, and suit can be filed for infringing the copyright on a short film. But the more expensive a film was to make, and the more money the owner expects it to earn, the more likely it is that the owner will choose to sue. Many people infringe by uploading short films or videos, gambling that the copyright owners will never learn of this, or will not trouble to sue. Sometimes such infringers are correct, and sometimes they get sued. I do not understand what the OP means by the part of the question that reads &quot;There should be more detail and complex lines over here&quot; What additional detail is wanted? Who does the OP expect to provide it? What sort of &quot;lines&quot; does this refer to?
You are in effect asking if this is a case of Fair use, an important US-specific legal concept in copyright law. Please review this question for an overview of fair use. See also This statement from the US copyright office Deciding whether a use is a fair use is always a fact-driven, case-by-case, process. No one ever knows for sure if a use is a fair use unless that specific use is challenged in court as infringement, and the fair use defense is raised and sustained or not. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry. This means that there is no formula to ensure that a predetermined percentage or amount of a work—or specific number of words, lines, pages, copies—may be used without permission. ("More Information on Fair Use" -US Copyright office) Factors Let's look at the fair-use factors in the case of this photo: Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: The use is apparently for clearly commercial purpose. This tends to weigh against fair use, but does not rule it out. Then the is the question of whether the use is transformative. The background image apparently serves its original decorative purpose. Whether making it part of an ad is transformative might be debated. Nature of the copyrighted work: The graffiti is an artistic and creative work, not a work of non-fiction or news reporting or factual information. This also tends to weigh against fair use. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: It seems that almost all of the work of graffiti, or at least a significant part of it, is being used. This tends to weigh against fair use to some degree. moreover, the work of graffiti is quite prominent in the background of the work, which ,means it makes a significant contribution to the final work, which also weighs against fair use. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: If the work of graffiti is currently being marketed, the question does not say so, and i would suppose that it isn't. There could be a potential market: the artist could make photos or prints of the work and market them, for example. Even so, this image probably wouldn't affect such a market much. This factor probably inclines towards fair use, but it is hard to say just how a court would asses it. Case law In Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997) A poster of a “church quilt” was used in the background of a television series for 27 seconds. This was held not to be fair use. The court was influenced by the prominence of the poster, its thematic importance for the set decoration of a church, and the fact that it was a conventional practice to license such works for use in television programs. This case seems particularly close to the one in the question. In Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd. 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006) posters of Grateful Dead concerts were reproduced in a book. This was held to be fair use. The reduced size of the images, and their appearance in the context of a timeline were considered significant. In Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLC, 766 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2014) A modified photo of a Wisconsin mayor was reproduced on a Tshirt and used to raise money for an event. the photo was posterized, background removed, text added, and a lime green outline featuring the mayor’s smile remained. The resulting image of the mayor, the court stated, “can’t be copyrighted.” Defendants removed so much of the original that, as with the Cheshire Cat, only the smile remains. Defendants started with a low-­resolution version posted on the City’s website, so much of the original’s detail never had a chance to reach the copy; the original’s background is gone; its colors and shading are gone; the expression in Soglin’s eyes can no longer be read; after the posterization (and reproduction by silk-­screening), the effect of the lighting in the original is almost extinguished. What is left, besides a hint of Soglin’s smile, is the outline of his face, which can’t be copyrighted. (I take this to mean that the elements actually copied do not have enough original content to be a copyrightable wqrk.) In Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 336 F.3d. 811 (9th Cir. 2003) use of thumbnail images in search engine results was held to be fair use. The reduced size and image quality were significant to the court. So was the transformative use of the images to help identify and index the pages. Conclusion This is not a clear-cut case, in my view, but the case for fair use does not seem strong to me. Copyright protection of Unauthorized Graffiti A number of comments and some other answers have raised the question of whether graffiti made without the permission of the owner or tenant of the location, and therefore illegally, are entitled to copyright protection. The first thing to say is that there is nothing in 17 USC (the US copyright law) that conditions copyright protection on the legality of the work, or of its publication. Case law on this precise issue is not easy to find, nor does there seem to be much of it. IPWatchDog's "Preventing a Graffiti Copyright Infringement Lawsuit" (2018) says: Several high-profile companies, American Apparel, Coach, American Eagle Outfitters and H&amp;M who shot advertisements in public spaces, have found themselves inadvertently in the midst of such legal disputes with street artists. Even though an advertiser may have had permission from the property owners, even though the “artwork” was unsanctioned and unsigned or “tagged,” the graffiti artists have come forward after the ads were already in circulation, identified themselves and sought compensation and damages. It goes on to say that: These cases tend to be settled out of court, because regardless of the merit of an infringement claim, they are costly to defend and the unwarranted negative publicity can injure a company’s reputation. ... Also, from a legal standpoint, the question of whether the copyrights of illegally created street art are valid has not yet been determined – so there would be some element of doubt as to how a litigation would be decided. *The Atlantic's article "Can Graffiti Be Copyrighted?" about the case of graffiti artist David Anasagasti's case against American Eagle Outfitters for use of his work (and several other similar suits) quotes Philippa Loengard, assistant director of Columbia Law School’s Kernochan Center for Law, Media, and the Arts as saying: Given what I know of the case, this is one of the most blatant examples of copyright infringement None of the suits mentioned in the story seem to have resulted in a court decision as yet. In Falkner v. General Motors Company, the trial judge held that the art was not "part of" the building and thus the exemption for photos of architectural works under 17 USC 120 does not apply. However it denied plaintiff’s DMCA claim and his claim for punitive damages. The court held that: because the facts in the record tend to establish—if anything—the lack of a relevant connection between the mural and the parking garage, the Court cannot hold as a matter of law that the mural is part of an architectural work under Section 102(a)(8). Thus, it cannot reach the issue of whether Section 120(a) applies to the mural to permit photographs of the mural. In an article in the N.Y.U. Journal of IP &amp; Entertainment Law "Protecting Artistic Vandalism" author Celia Lerman argues that copyright should protect unauthorized, illegal graffiti art. This article notes that: Graffiti pieces increasingly attract the attention of numerous collectors, gallery owners, publishers, filmmakers, and journalists. Pieces from famous graffiti artists have sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars in the art market. Graffiti pieces have even been given as diplomatic gifts. Galleries are seeing record attendance at exhibitions of graffiti works, and publishers have generated a boom of photographic books on graffiti and street art. (citations omitted) The article notes that Tattooed Walls a book by Peter Rosenstein about NYC Graffiti, reproduced images of many works of graffiti without permisison, the author believed that these were fair use because they were posted in public places. Several artist sued, a settlement was agreed to, and the book was withdrawn from publication. The article mentions a suit against Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 2 Official Strategy Guide, by the author of a work of graffiti which was reproduced. The suit was initially dismissed for lack of copyright registration, but the court said that it “assumed, without deciding, that the work is copyrightable.” When the suit was refiled after registration, a motion to dismiss was denied, and the parties then settled, so there was no court decision on the merits. Other simialtr cases are mentioned. The article goes on to analyze the law and the purposes that copyright law serves, and give reasons why such works should be protected. But none of this cites an actual case where an illegal graffito has been held protected. The Falkner case will not produce such a ruling, because the art in that case was authorized, indeed invited, by the building owner.
In principle, every single copyright license allows someone to do something that plain copyright law wouldn't allow them to do. Very often there are conditions: They are allowed to do X, which plain copyright law wouldn't allow them to do, but only if they fulfil some condition Y. The consequence is that if they do X without fulfilling the condition Y, then they are committing copyright infringement. Details are different from country to country. In the USA, you cannot force someone to do what the license asks the, to do, but if they don't, it's copyright infringement, and you can sue them and ask for damages. Other countries see it as a contract, where by doing X they agree to do Y as well, and not doing it would be breach of contract. Often with the interesting effect that you as the copyright holder cannot prove that they accepted the license, so in court they can tell the judge whether they were committing copyright infringement or whether they are in breach of contract. You can of course use your own license - however, one of the standard licenses mean the license was likely checked by a better lawyer than you would want to pay, and is much more likely to achieve what you want to achieve. If there were any problems say with the Creative Commons license, people would have found those problems and fixed them a long time ago.
If you used some creative work of mine without my permission (I'm the copyright holder, and you have no license giving you permission) then I can sue you to make you stop using my work, to get payment for damages, and to get payment for statutory damages. If you used my work because someone else told you wrongly that you had a license, that's very unfortunate for you, but is no reason why I wouldn't or shouldn't sue you. Obviously in this situation that third party did something badly wrong. I can sue both of you together to make sure that I get payment from whoever has deeper pockets. You can also sue that third party if you think that their lying, or being mistaken, about a non-existing license caused you damages, or if there is a contract or something that makes them responsible.
Permission is not a physical thing that disappears when a piece of paper evidencing that permission is lost or handed to another party. When someone gives you permission as part of an agreement having the necessary characteristics of a contract, then the revocation of that permission is governed by the terms of the contract itself and your jurisdiction's contract-law. You may not need any permission to use the photos you paid to have taken. (For example, in the U.S. if they were taken in a public place and you are not displaying them for profit.) Or, you might need permission due to various rules or laws protecting minors – only an IP lawyer familiar with your jurisdiction can confirm this is the case – and, unless it was drafted by a competent lawyer, it is quite possible that your "permission statement" was legally insufficient or defective. Or, you might have legally secured necessary permission and still have that permission even though you handed the "permission statement" back to the parents of the subject. In practice: Only a lawyer in your jurisdiction can offer an opinion on which of these scenarios is in fact the case. And only via litigation can you establish further confidence that legal opinion is correct.
An affirmative defense In the US, fair use (17 USC §107) &quot;is an affirmative defense&quot; (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 510 U.S. 569 (1994)). It need not be raised unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant's activity would otherwise be infringing. When fair use is raised as a defense, the burden is on the defendant to prove the elements of fair use. A four-factor balancing test Here is the text of 17 USC 107: Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, 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. &quot;Congress meant §107 to restate the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way and intended that courts continue the common-law tradition of fair use adjudication.&quot; (Campbell, quoting from H. R. Rep. No. 94-1476). Factor 1: Purpose and character of use The statute explicitly lists several purposes which would weigh in favor of a finding of fair use: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research. However, that list is only illustrative, not exhaustive. Commercial use weighs against fair use. Nonprofit use weighs in favor of fair use. Parody is another purpose which greatly affects the analysis, especially as it interacts with factor 4. Factor 2: The nature of the copyrighted work &quot;[T]he scope of fair use is generally broader when the source of borrowed expression is a factual or historical work&quot; (Campbell). &quot;[I]nformational works, such as news reports, that readily lend themselves to productive use by others, are less protected than creative works of entertainment.&quot; (Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984)) Factor 3: Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole &quot;The extent of permissible copying varies with the purpose and character of the use.&quot; (Campbell) For example, full reproduction of an entire work was allowed in Sony. However, in Harper &amp; Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985), taking just 300 words from a 7,500 word excerpt of President Ford's memoirs was not found to be fair use because it took the &quot;heart of the book&quot;. The amount and substantiality of the taking is judged with respect to the original work. How much of the original was taken? &quot;A taking may not be excused merely because it is insubstantial with respect to the infringing work. As Judge Learned Hand cogently remarked, 'no plagiarist can excuse the wrong by showing how much of his work he did not pirate.'&quot; (Harper &amp; Row) Factor 4: Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work If the use new work takes the place of the original, thereby decreasing its market or value, that weighs against a finding of fair use. However, parody or criticism, simply by decreasing the value of the work it is critical of, does not suffer the same fate. &quot;The market for potential derivative uses includes only those that creators of original works would in general develop or license others to develop. [...] [T]he law recognizes no derivative market for critical works.&quot; (Campbell) Parody and criticism might decrease the value of the original, not by taking its place, but rather, by saying something negative about it. Protection of that type of speech is one of the goals of the fair use defense. Transformativeness The four factors are not to be &quot;treated in isolation, one from another.&quot; &quot;All are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright.&quot; (Campbell) However, the court recognizes that &quot;[t]he central purpose of this investigation is to see, in Justice Story's words, whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation&quot;, &quot;to what extent the new work is transformative&quot;. &quot;[T]he more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use.&quot; (Campbell) Case-by-case analysis &quot;The task is not to be simplified with bright-line rules, for the statute, like the doctrine it recognizes, calls for case-by-case analysis.&quot; (Campbell) In general, it is not possible know ahead of time whether a fair use defense would be successful in a particular case. Example cases Perhaps the best way to learn how the courts apply these four factors is to look at example cases. The US Copyright Office hosts a Fair Use Case Index that lets you browse by subject matter and jurisdiction. Stanford hosts a smaller collection of examples.