Lawsuits Over Copyright Infringement by Instagram Re-Posters
In a intriguing turn of events, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing a case about a monkey who took selfies with a camera, raising questions about animal ownership of copyrights. However, this issue is not central to the case at hand. Instead, the focus lies on the actions of renowned artist Richard Prince, who has found himself embroiled in a copyright dispute.
Prince, known for his controversial art, has a history of using other people's work in his creations. In a previous court case, he won a victory by crudely drawing over 25 of another photographer's photos and publishing them under his own name. But this time, the stakes are different.
The present case revolves around a photographer whose camera was seized by a monkey, resulting in a series of selfies. Prince, in his usual fashion, took these photos from his Instagram feed, enlarged them, and displayed them as part of an exhibit without seeking the owners' permission.
This action has led to a lawsuit, with PETA claiming that the monkey owns the copyright to the selfies. However, the outcome of this case is yet to be determined. What is clear, though, is that Prince's actions do not meet the legal standard for transformation required to avoid copyright infringement in the United States.
Under U.S. copyright law, incorporating other people's work into your own art is permissible if the original work is transformed enough. The transformation must change the original work sufficiently so that the new use serves a different purpose or character and does not usurp the original's market.
In the case of Prince's exhibit, simply enlarging and displaying the photos without altering their purpose or character does not meet this standard. The new use does not serve a different purpose or character and could potentially usurp the original's market.
This legal standard is case-specific and is ultimately determined by courts. The recent Supreme Court decision in Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith clarified that simply adding new meaning or expression is not enough—the transformative use must fundamentally alter the original in a way that the new work does not compete with or replace the original’s commercial market.
The complexities of copyright law are further highlighted in the context of AI-generated content, a topic that is generating much debate in the artistic community. As we navigate these complexities, it is essential to consider issues when drafting a photo services contract to protect one's intellectual property rights.
Regardless of the outcome of the monkey selfie case, it is clear that this case will be influential in setting the level of audacity one can legally use when appropriating other people's photos. It serves as a reminder that transforming another's work is not a license to usurp their rights, but rather a call to create something new and distinct.
Artificial intelligence is generating debate in the artistic community, particularly regarding AI-generated content and copyright law. In the context of the monkey selfie case, technology like artificial intelligence could potentially influence how courts view the level of audacity allowed when appropriating other people's photos. The legal standard for transformative use, as demonstrated in the case of Richard Prince's exhibit, requires changing the original work sufficiently so that the new use serves a different purpose or character and does not usurp the original's market, even if it adds new meaning or expression.
