Can We Use European Poster?

Dear Rich: I am an author in the process of publishing a book about modern day Europe. There is a poster (left) which was issued years ago by the Council of Europe, with a slogan which says "Many Tongues One Voice." We would really like to include this in our book but the publisher says we must first get permission from the Council of Europe since the poster is copyrighted. Could you advise as to the proper procedure to get this done? In case you're not aware, there are many who believe that Satan had a hand in the creation of this poster. We don't know if that contribution rises to co-authorship but we sure wouldn't want to run up against the Evil One in a federal court case.
Right, you had a question. The typical procedure for getting permission would be to contact the apparent owner of rights -- the Council of Europe -- and to ask for permission. Here's their contact information. Although the Council of Europe is a multinational organization --  a bit like the United Nations -- it can retain copyrights. For example, the Council of Europe is listed as copyright claimant for seven U.S. copyrights (although there is no registration for the poster). You can review their U.S. copyrights by searching at the Copyright Office. Click "Search the Catalog" and filter your search by "Name." If you can't get a response for your requests, document your attempts in the event that you decide to claim fair use. As we've indicated before, there are a line of cases that make thumbnail reproductions, whether in books or on the web, more likely to be excused as a fair use, especially when accompanied by commentary or criticism.

Wants to Quote Movie Dialogue in Novel

Dear Rich: I don't see anything in your Getting Permission book on getting permission to quote dialog from films. I assume that the process is similar to getting permission to quote song lyrics, but it would be better if you covered this in detail. I want to quote with attribution some movie dialog in a novel I am writing. Any suggestions? Speaking of film dialogue, we were surprised recently when reading the French classic Pere Goriot to find a line about someone "making him an offer that he cannot refuse." Did Balzac travel to the 20th Century, watch the Godfather, return to the past and copy the movie dialogue for his novel? We guess we'll never know.
Right, you had a question. The rules for using film dialogue in a novel are the same as for all text uses (explained in Chapter 2 of the book). As you're probably aware, there is no fixed amount of words that you can use without permission, although some uses are so minimal as to be considered de minimis (scroll down). The difference with using film dialogue is that it's often difficult to figure who owns the rights and even harder to get permission for the use.
Why is it difficult to get permission for movie dialogue? Generally the studio (or a producer) owns all rights to the movie including the dialogue. But in some cases, screenwriters may retain rights. In other cases, if the movie were based upon a book, the author may retain certain rights. That's the challenge when using one layer from a multi-layered work -- determining who has the right to grant permission. Even if a studio does own the rights to the dialogue, you still have the practical problem of finding the person authorized to grant permission (and convincing that person not to hang up on you).
What's a novelist to do? If you're publishing the book yourself, you're probably less at risk because you won't be indemnifying against infringement. Publishers get uptight about stuff like that and insist on some security in the form of warranties and indemnity. On the other hand, a publisher may be able to assist you with getting rights and permissions from a studio. If you're on your own and you're still concerned about getting chased, consider whether you can make a realistic fair use claim. That is, can you demonstrate that your use of the dialog is transformative -- for example, Woody Allen's use of dialogue from Casablanca in Play It Again, Sam, was transformative (though Allen likely acquired permission for that and the film clips).
Speaking of great movie dialogue ... we're partial to Things Change (Don Ameche's swan song). It's got dialogue -- written by David Mamet and Shel Silverstein -- with some serious staying power.

Using Text of Operas ... in Paintings

Dear Rich (and Dear Rich Staff): I have created painted works of art with oil on canvas and water color marker on paper using the text of public domain operas and plays in such a way that they are no longer readable as text. The full text is still there but, it has been over written in a variety of colors such that one could not actually gain any context or meaning from trying to read the painting as a copy of the opera or play. I judge that this as fair use and should be able to sell my work without consequence.Do I need to get permission to use copyrighted work that has been similarly obscured for this purpose if I intend to sell the unique painting I have created? Just an FYI, but you state you're using the text of public domain operas. If the text of the opera is in the public domain, there's no need for a fair use argument -- you can do whatever you want with it. As for your question about the use of copyrighted works there are two ways that could play:

• If you purchased the text of the opera -- for example, in sheet music form or in a book -- and you are painting on the pages of text (or incorporating them a collage), you won't need permission. You can probably justify that under the first sale doctrine. 
• If you are reproducing the text in a painting, we think you can probably make a strong fair use argument because you are using a small portion of the opera's text, you are not competing with or depriving the copyright owners of commercial gain, and based on your description, your use appears to be transformative --  that is you're making a new statement. if the words are obscured so that their meaning cannot be ascertained, we're not even sure you've infringed as your artwork no longer would be substantially similar to the opera text. Check out fair use rules before proceeding.   

Wants to Use Thrift Store Dolls to Illustrate Stories

Dear Rich: I wish to illustrate about 25 of my own short stories, each with one ensemble of about 6 to 12 small objects such as dolls, ornaments, cut-outs of posters, etc. Many of these objects I find at thrift or junk stores, so they no longer have any packaging or any identifying marks. Other items are new and/or have identifying marks of the original source. Can I publish my photos as illustrations to my written work without seeking permission from each and every original creator of each item in every ensemble, or is there some fair use law that allows me to circumvent the (pretty much) impossible task of getting permission for every single item? There's no law we can point to that will guarantee you're okay but if you're self-publishing this book, you can probably make a strong fair use argument. That's because we assume your use is transformative -- that is, your use of the dolls or other images makes a new statement or takes on new meanings. Before making the claim, you should review fair use rules (as each use requires a separate analysis).
What if You Get Signed to a Big Deal Publisher? If you're planning to sign with a commercial publisher then things could get more complicated because most publishers will require that you clear copyrighted materials beforehand --  they're not big fair use fans. And they'll insist that you indemnify them as well. Which means that if they get sued, you'll pay for their legal costs. Ouch! So, if you're looking at a commercial publishing deal take your questions to a copyright lawyer for an expert opinion on each use. Then, you can proceed with more confidence if you need to indemnify.

Can Rangoli Be Protected By Copyright?

Dear Rich: I am working on a children's book that explains how to do a type of folk art known as Rangoli. Rangoli is very popular and is made by millions of people all throughout India. The nature of this type of art, which has been practiced for many years, is that there are extreme similarities in the designs that people create, and designs are also passed on so that they are perpetually duplicated. As I research this topic, I find that people claim to have a copyright to designs they post on their websites even though some of them are clearly duplicates with the only difference being a slight change – either in the design or the color scheme, or possibly none at all. So, my questions are: (1) Can people claim a copyright to those designs that were clearly derived from other people’s work? What happens if there are designs in my book that fall in this same category? (2) What happens if, in the creative process, you inadvertently duplicate a design someone made of which you are completely unaware? Is there anything that can protect you in this instance? (3) How can anyone truly claim a copyright to art that has been duplicated by so many people for so many years? How do I protect myself? Rangoli artists often share elements -- for example, lotus flowers and leaves, swans and parrots, and certain human imagery. Many times these elements are copied and re-arranged and other times, an artist may create unique elements by hand, without copying. When elements are original, the copyright can be claimed by the artist. When elements are in the public domain -- taken from much older works -- a derivative copyright can be claimed as to the manner in which the elements are re-arranged and as to new elements that are added. But the less modification that is made to public domain elements, the thinner (and less enforceable) the copyright. In other words, the degree of originality matters when seeking to enforce rights over a traditional Rangoli work.
If you copy. If you reproduce someone's original work, or derivative designs over which people claim copyright, then the owner may pursue you in court. That's provided that the owner can register the work, convince a court that it is protectible, and that your use does not constitute fair use. That may be an uphill battle for some Rangoli creators, and not so difficult for some others.
Inadvertent duplication. As for Question #2, if you inadvertently duplicate a Rangoli work -- that is, you create it independently without copying --  then you would not be liable for copyright infringement.  As long as you can prove you didn't copy and you created something independently, there is no infringement.
Bottom line. We think there are so many centuries of Rangoli art available, and so you should be able to safely include older public domain Ragnoli works. If you want to reproduce a work and you're unsure of whether it's protected, our suggestion is to keep the image as small as possible as the trend lately has been to permit thumbnail usage of artwork as a fair use. Finally, avoid copying and reproducing large groups of Rangoli from websites. That's because some Rangoli collections may qualify as a compilation copyright which protects the choice and order of the collection but not the individual works.

Photo Credits: Can You Remove Them?

no shoes, no shirt;
no fair use defense

Dear Rich: Please discuss Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group, a recent case that deals with nudity, defamation and copyright law. Okay, here goes: A photographer's copyrighted picture of two nude radio "shock jocks" was published in the New Jersey Monthly. The radio station that employed the men scanned and posted the photo online (after removing the photo credit that ran alongside the photo -- known in the trade as a "gutter credit"). The station then encouraged listeners to download the photo, modify it and resubmit the photos to the station for posting. When the photographer's lawyer complained to the station, the jocks did what is expected from men who pose nude to promote radio shows -- they insulted the photographer, advised others not to do business with him, and made crude comments about his sexuality. The photographer sued for defamation, copyright infringement, and for violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The district court ruled in a summary judgment against the photographer on all counts.
The Court of Appeals Decision. On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed. More discovery was needed to decide the defamation claims (the tapes of the show had been destroyed). The Third Circuit also blew off any fair use defense. Posting the original photo and encouraging listener modifications was a purely commercial use and carried no additional transformative message. For those keeping score, all four fair use factors weighed against the station.
Removal of the credit. The most interesting claim was the argument that the DMCA prohibited the removal of copyright management information (CMI), which includes digital identifying information such as the name of the author. The Third Circuit ruled that the "gutter credit" qualified as CMI and cutting it off the photo violated the DMCA.
Takeaway Dept. In this case, someone physically cut off the photo credit, scanned the photo and posted the digital result, something not many people anticipated would trigger a DMCA claim. Does this mean that you must always include a photo credit when you reproduce a photo? Not necessarily; it just means you cannot remove an existing credit. This issue may become more confusing if the credit is not adjacent on the printed page, perhaps something that other cases will decide. For now, gutter credits qualify as CMI, at least in the Third Circuit.

40 Years Later: Fair Use, Public Domain, ITUs, PPAs, and more

Nolo, our employer, is celebrating its 40th anniversary this week and the editors have been asked to summarize legal changes during the past four decades. Here's an IP summary.
Ah, 1971, the good old days when nobody, except for a small group of attorneys and judges, even knew that “intellectual property” (IP) referred to copyrights, patents and trademarks. More importantly, back in 1971, consumers had no means of infringing intellectual property unless they owned a record pressing plant, a printing press, a film processing machine, or some other manufacturing device. Flash forward to 2011 and anyone with a smart phone can copy Nolo books, podcasts and Nolo videos. Intellectual property law has changed so dramatically in the past 40 years that documenting all of the major changes would take a week’s worth of blogs. So, we're going to just focus on five big changes to IP laws that affected Nolo.


Public Domain and the Never-Ending Copyright. In 1971, when Nolo was founded, the copyright in a Nolo book usually lasted an average of 56 years. But the 1976 Copyright Act initiated a new formula – copyright for the life of the author plus 50 years. For a Nolo author, that could mean that copyright in a book—for example, Patent It Yourself—could last longer than a century. In 1998, spurred on by the Disney Company and its aging mascot Mickey Mouse, the U.S. passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act which extended protection further (life of the author plus 70 years). One effect of this extension – which was challenged and upheld by the courts – is that for a twenty-year period ending January 1, 2019, no new works will fall into the public domain in the U.S.


Fair Use Defined. Five years after Nolo was founded, the U.S. overhauled its copyright law and included a historic first – a section defining fair use and establishing four factors to determine whether an infringement was excused as a fair use. The Supreme Court subsequently reshaped that provision twice.

• (1984) The Court ruled in the Betamax decision -- thanks to some helpful testimony by TV’s Mr. Rogers—that recording television shows off the air for purposes of later viewing (time-shifting) was a fair use. That was also the first time that the Supreme Court said that copying of a complete work (not just a snippet) was okay. It was also the first copyright case to touch a popular nerve. The Supreme Court received a record number of “friends of the court” briefs (non-parties expressing an interest in the case), and the nascent video industry rallied Betamax owners to lobby their elected officials to prevent legislation that would have nullified the Court’s ruling. The Betamax case was a precursor of the battles over digital copying, most noticeably the Napster case.
• (1994) The Supreme Court held in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc. that 2 Live Crew's parody of Roy Orbison's song, "Pretty Woman," was a fair use. Prior to this ruling, most courts weighed the four fair use factors and placed the most emphasis on the "money" factor -- the effect of the use upon the potential market. But in Campbell, the court mandated that it was the first factor – purpose and character of the use -- that was most important. The question to be asked according to Campbell was whether the material taken from the original work was transformed by adding new expression or meaning, by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, or new understandings (sometimes referred to as the “transformative factor”). In a recent dispute where Nolo was threatened with a lawsuit over use of an image, Nolo was able to negotiate a settlement by asserting rights under the Supreme Court’s “transformative” standard.

The Intent-To-Use Trademark. Prior to 1998, there was no way for a company developing a new product to reserve a federal trademark. But the Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988 changed that and for the first time permitted applicants to “reserve” a trademark based on a bona fide intent to use the mark in the future. The new applications (dubbed “1b applications” or “intent-to-use applications” or simply ITUs) made it possible for Nolo to reserve one of its marks for a new software product.


Cybersquatters beware. Speaking of trademarks, Nolo was also able to take advantage of another change in trademark law – passage of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999. That law enabled Nolo to successfully challenge a Nolo domain name being used in bad faith to siphon web surfers who sought out Nolo but ended up at another site. In another domain name dispute, Nolo was able to successfully use the international arbitration procedures managed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).


The Provisional Patent Application. At the time Nolo was founded, if you had invented something but you weren’t ready to file a patent application, there was no effective, fast and cheap way to record your discovery at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Then, in 1995, President Clinton signed a law that allowed inventors to file a provisional patent application (PPA) – a simple document consisting of text and drawings that describes how to make and use an invention. Once the inventor sends it to the USPTO, the inventor establishes an effective filing date for the invention and can use the "patent pending" label on the invention—at least for 12 months from the filing date, at which point a regular patent application must be filed. In 2009, Nolo created an online procedure to simplify PPA filing. As a result, hundreds of PPAs have been filed electronically using Nolo's system.