# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Totino's Activity Pack Super Bowl Commercial - SNL

# data[].attributes.body
‘7 Rings’ Is a Hit for Ariana Grande, and a Knockout for Rodgers and Hammerstein

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‘Blurred Lines’ on Their Minds, Songwriters Create Nervously (Published 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
“I shouldn’t be thinking about legal precedent when I am trying to write a chorus,” a Beyoncé songwriter says, long after “Blurred Lines” led to a rise in plagiarism claims.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fortnite And The Milly Rock Debate: Can You Copyright A Dance Move?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Graphic by Laci Jordan
In Extremely Online, Shamira Ibrahim investigates the origins and impact of internet phenomena, viral trends, and other online mysteries that shape our daily digital experiences. This piece is also part of In Browsing Black History, in which we celebrate Black History Month by exploring the origins of internet trends and icons popularized by Black cultural producers, too often left uncredited for their work.

When South Korean boy band BTS made their highly-anticipated first appearance on the The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon this past September, they performed their smash hit song "Idol," replete with the well-known dance move associated with it-the base of which is an extension of the South African gwara gwara dance with an additional four-count pulse for flair, and got relabeled into its own Idol Challenge. It wasn't the only dancing they did during their time on Fallon's stage: In a pre-recorded segment, they also engaged in the Fortnite dance challenge.

The Tonight Show is far from the only program to do one of these viral segments: Sites such as BuzzFeed and shows such as Access Hollywood have all participated in the wildly popular challenge, borne out of the "emotes" embedded in the multiplayer online video game, largely obtained via in-game purchases. Classic dances such as the Robot, the Worm, and the Charleston (called "the Flapper" in the game) are also optional add-ons-but so are newer dances attached to Black artists of present-day, such as 2 Milly's Milly Rock and Blocboy JB's " Shoot " dance. But 2 Milly and Blocboy aren't mentioned in these emotes whatsoever. Nor are their predefined choreography names.

Instead, they have been rendered into a milquetoast version, absent the verve and the accreditation to the Black cultural production it was derived from: The Milly Rock is now (ironically) " Swipe It," and Shoot is now " Hype."

The mimicry doesn't stop there. There is Tidy, which is a frame-for-frame sync with Snoop Dogg's steering-wheel move in the "Drop it Like it's Hot" music video. In a comical bit of allusion, the " Fresh" dance is a rendition of Alfonso Ribeiro's infamous "Carlton dance" performed on The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air twenty years before. And the costs of these dances range from anywhere from 500 V-Bucks (the equivalent of $5 USD) to a $9.50 pass upgrade-with 125 million users on the platform, the revenue from these sales is estimated to be $2 billion, according to a report from Techcrunch.

Unfortunately, none of the Black artists who were the inspiration for many of the popular dance emotes saw any of it.

The misappropriation and profiteering of Black content is not without precedent: In an essay titled Intellectual Property at the Intersection of Race and Gender, law professor K.J. Greene wrote "the history of Black artists within U.S. IP law has been one of appropriation, degradation, and devaluation beginning with the creation of the nation until the 1950s and 60s." Greene contends that Black artists have consistently been penalized for innovating in the public sphere-which includes the music genres of country, jazz, blues, rock-and-roll, and hip-hop-limiting the bounds of what previously applied under copyright protection and ultimately rendering Black creativity as public domain.

Nowadays, the copyright laws may technically protect more content-it is attached upon the completion of the artifact (not upon registration as commonly assumed), be it a song, a written piece, or other "tangible works," but that is only half of the fight.

"The issue isn't necessarily in you creating and owning it. It [just] costs money to enforce," Bärí A. Williams, a technology lawyer and VP of Legal, Business, and Policy Affairs at All Turtles, a product design and development incubator, tells Broadly. "A rule is only as good as how it is enforced."

The means in which Black niches have been rifled through, hand-selected, and proliferated may not be new. But the advent of social media has accelerated the speed at which these trends have flooded into the mainstream and ultimately corporatized for gain-especially in instances where the nuances of the privacy policy may contain obscure language that allows for corporations to own, license, and publish original and innovative content at their whim, however unethical it may be.

"IP issues are extremely expensive to litigate and to handle," Williams clarifies. "Nine times out of ten, people are not going to try to enforce that right because it just costs too much-and the people who can't afford it are the people in marginalized communities who are making all the great content, that are making things go viral, that are making things hot. And that's the problem. The game is not set up for us to win."

Presently, 2 Milly, Blocboy, and Ribeiro have all retained the legal counsel of the firm Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht, LLP. According to David Hecht, partner at Pierce Bainbridge and lead attorney for both Ribeiro and 2 Milly, the firm is hoping that this suit will not only force Epic Games to be held accountable for its alleged copyright infringement, but will also set a potential opportunity for a right of publicity law, which governs the commercial use of one's likeness or other aspects tied to their persona, to be set on the national scale instead of on a state-by-state basis.

While there has been much debate over whether or not choreography is eligible for protection, Hecht points out that it, in fact, is under United States Copyright Law, as "the composition and arrangement of a related series of dance movements and patterns organized into a coherent whole;" with the added note that video recordings can be used to verify the "tangible medium," such as music videos.

"Epic has no problem with paying Marvel or the NFL [for their IP], and these are billion-dollar companies," Hecht points out to Broadly. "These individual artists got ignored because they thought 'what are the chances to litigate'?," he believes.

A representative from Epic Games told Broadly that they do not comment on ongoing litigation.

There does seem to be precedent here: Dancer Gabby J David uploaded her own choreography to a remix to Bad and Boujee in 2017, only for it to be turned into the Electro Shuffle emote. In a tweet from David's account, she indicated that Epic Games had opted for a settlement, writing, "they stole it from me and are now settling with me aka they 1000% stole my stuff." The amount of her reported settlement has not been made public.

The phenomenon in video games doesn't stop at helm of Epic Games: Take-Two Interactive and their video game subsidiary, 2K Games, Inc. is also under fire for using multiple proprietary Black dances into the popular NBA 2K18 game without accrediting or compensating the inventors. In both cases, Hecht describes it as an "exploitation and cultural misappropriation of African-American talent," citing that the measures that these companies are taking amount to not only intentional theft as the artists were never so much as approached, it also cheapens the dance when it is introduced to the masses of approximately 125 million people devoid of its original context.

The fight for proprietary rights to Black cultural production is not a novel discussion. However, at the confluence of technology, capitalism, and regulation, young creatives find themselves at the mercy of lawmakers' ability to keep pace with the vanguard of technological trends. While there may yet to be a consensus on the clearest path forward, it behooves the creators of culture to continue to hold accountable the distillations of their own artistic output.

For More Stories Like This, Sign Up for Our Newsletter

In a 2015 article for the Fader, Doreen St. Felix wrote, "When we talk about technology, the designation of 'digital innovator' is usually reserved for the engineers who create platforms or the entrepreneurs who instruct them to... A cursory glance at the user-generated content rising to the top of the internet heap reveals how much of it is produced by Black teens, members of a burgeoning Generation Z who experiment with the iPhone gaze."

At the time, the discussion of the moment was around Peaches Monroee, aka Kayla Newman, who became infamous for bringing the phrase "on fleek" into the digital zeitgeist without any control of its canonization afterward. She is far from the only one: BET's digital series " I Went Viral" is a live accounting of some of the biggest stories of our digital innovators and improvisers, some who have had varying measures of success with accreditation and compensation, all generally at the whims of the profiteer.

The lesson in these stories and so many others throughout America's history is evident: Going viral may seem to be something that is purely a result of serendipity, but the fact is having an aptitude for making art that captures the cutting-edge of creativity in expression and improvisation has been a longstanding pattern for Black people in America.

Isn't it time to give credit-socially, financially, or otherwise-where it's due?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the Internet Became a Playground for Exploiting Black Creators

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Graphic by Laci Jordan In Extremely Online, Shamira Ibrahim investigates the origins and impact of internet phenomena, viral trends, and other online mysteries that shape our daily digital experiences. This piece is also part of In Browsing Black History, in which we celebrate Black History Month by exploring the origins of internet trends and icons popularized by Black cultural producers, too often left uncredited for their work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sesame Street: Sharing Things (Stranger Things Parody)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Weird Al" Yankovic - Foil (Official Video)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Weird Al" Yankovic - Word Crimes (Official 4K Video)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
president of the united states (ontology class)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Royals" Parody by George Washington - @MrBettsClass

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
George Washington sings about his legacy to Lorde's "Royals." Who knew he could dance so well?!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We look back at historic rulings from "Surfin' U.S.A." to "Blurred Lines"

We run down 12 landmark copyright cases in music history, from the Beach Boys vs. Chuck Berry to Lana Del Rey vs. Radiohead. Michael Ochs Archives/Getty, Kevin Winter/Getty, Michael Ochs Archives/Getty

Western music is made up of just 12 notes, which yield a practically infinite number of songs. That's the theory, at least. It's only natural that composers mimic what's been successful in the past, but as Robin Thicke and Pharrell learned the hard way, there's a blurred line between inspiration and theft. And musical copyright continues to be a hot-button issue, affecting everyone from Madonna, Justin Bieber, Ed Sheeran and Lana Del Rey to the mighty Led Zeppelin.

Read on for 12 of the most infamous copyright infringement cases in pop music history. From lyrical lifts and unlicensed sampling, to melodies that sound just a tad too similar, there are many points of contention. Are the original artists looking out for their intellectual property or their bank balance? The jury is out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Songs on Trial: 12 Landmark Music Copyright Cases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We look back at historic rulings from "Surfin' U.S.A." to "Blurred Lines" Western music is made up of just 12 notes, which yield a practically infinite number of songs. That's the theory, at least. It's only natural that composers mimic what's been successful in the past, but as Robin Thicke and Pharrell learned the hard way, there's a blurred line between inspiration and theft.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Earlier this year we informed readers that thousands of works of art and entertainment would soon enter the public domain-to be followed every year by thousands more. That day is nigh upon us: Public Domain Day, January 1, 2019. At the stroke of midnight, such beloved classics as Robert Frost's "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" and "Yes! We Have No Bananas" will become the common property of the people, to be quoted at length or in full anywhere when the copyright expires on work produced in 1923. Then, 1924 will expire in 2020, 1925 in 2021, and so on and so forth.

It means that "hundreds of thousands of books, musical compositions, paintings, poems, photographs and films" will become freely available to distribute, remix, and remake, as Glenn Fleishman writes at Smithsonian. "Any middle school can produce Theodore Pratt's stage adaptation of The Picture of Dorian Gray, and any historian can publish Winston Churchill's The World Crisis with her own extensive annotations... and any filmmaker can remake Cecil B. DeMille's original The Ten Commandments."

Those are just a few ideas. See more extensive lists of hits and obscurities from 1923 at our previous post and come up with your own creative adaptations. The possibilities are vast and possibly world changing, in ways both decidedly good and arguably quite bad. Teachers may photocopy thousands of pages without fear of prosecution; scholars may quote freely, artists may find deep wells of inspiration. And we may also see "Frost's immortal ode to winter used in an ad for snow tires."

Such crassness aside, this huge release from copyright heralds a cultural sea change-the first time such a thing has happened in 21 years due to a 20-year extension of the copyright term in 1998, in a bill sponsored by Sonny Bono at the urging of the Walt Disney company. The legislation, aimed at protecting Mickey Mouse, created a "bizarre 20-year hiatus between the release of works from 1922 and 1923." It is fascinating to consider how a government-mandated marketing decision has affected our understanding of history and culture.

The novelist Willa Cather called 1922 the year "the world broke in two," the start of a great literary, artistic and cultural upheaval. In 1922, Ulysses by James Joyce and T.S. Eliot's "The Waste Land" were published, and the Harlem Renaissance blossomed with the arrival of Claude McKay's poetry in Harlem Shadows. For two decades those works have been in the public domain, enabling artists, critics and others to burnish that notable year to a high gloss in our historical memory. In comparison, 1923 can feel dull.

That year, however, marked the film debut of Marlene Dietrich, the publication of modernist landmarks like Virginia Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway and Jean Toomer's Cane and far too many more influential works to name here. Find several more at Duke University's Center for the Study of the Public Domain, Lifehacker, Indiewire, and The Atlantic and have a very happy Public Domain Day.
Related Content: An Avalanche of Novels, Films and Other Works of Art Will Soon Enter the Public Domain: Virginia Woolf, Charlie Chaplin, William Carlos Williams, Buster Keaton & More The Library of Congress Launches the National Screening Room, Putting Online Hundreds of Historic Films List of Great Public Domain Films Josh Jones is a writer and musician based in Durham, NC. Follow him at @jdmagness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Public Domain Day Is Coming: On January 1st, 2019, Copyrighted Works Will Enter the Public Domain for the First Time in 21 Years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earlier this year we informed readers that thousands of works of art and entertainment would soon enter the public domain-to be followed every year by thousands more. That day is nigh upon us: Public Domain Day, January 1, 2019. At the stroke of midnight, such beloved classics as Robert Frost's "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" and "Yes!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
¿Plagio? Queen & David Bowie VS Vanilla Ice: Under Pressure (1982) - Ice Ice Baby (1990)

# data[].attributes.body
‘Blurred Lines’ Verdict Upheld by Appeals Court

‘Blurred Lines’ Infringed on Marvin Gaye Copyright, Jury Rules

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marvin Gaye - Got to give it up vs Robin Thicke - Blurred lines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hey guys, this is a mashup of the 2 songs "Got to give it up" by Marvin Gaye and "Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke. Can you find any similarities?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The REAL video is out NOW!!! Check it out: http://vevo.ly/j5WPqP The new album ALPOCALYPSE is in stores (as well as iTunes, Amazon and everywhere else) NOW!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Spaceballs (1/11) Movie CLIP - Pizza the Hutt (1987) HD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Conan's "Thursday": Rebecca Black's "Friday" Is A Rip-Off!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Watch CONAN @ http://teamcoco.com - Watch Conan reveals internet sensation Rebecca Black's original inspiration for her hit "Friday"...

# data[].attributes.body
Spoonful of Sugar from the Disney movie Mary Poppins

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
THE ORIGINAL Scary 'Mary Poppins' Recut Trailer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I created this video with the YouTube Video Editor (http://www.youtube.com/editor) I found the original video at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/documentary-film-program/film/a-fair-y-use-tale Disney Parody explanation of Copyright Law and Fair Use Synopsis: Professor Eric Faden of Bucknell University provides this humorous, yet informative, review of copyright principles delivered through the words of the very folks we can thank for nearly endless copyright terms. ***Description taken from website***

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Copyright has never been an easy, black-and-white kind of issue. Arguments over copyright between creatives happen all of the time, it's an inescapable issue.

Read through some of these famous court cases that have created major public discourse over copyright - how it's handled, what it means, and why we should all care.

1. Rogers vs. Koons
_

Photograph: Art Rogers - 1985; Polychrome: Jeff Koons - 1988 (both via The Design Observer Group)

Case

Photographer Art Rogers shot a photograph of a couple holding a line of puppies in a row and sold it for use in greeting cards and similar products. Internationally, renowned artist Jeff Koons in the process of creating an exhibit on the banality of everyday items, ran across Rogers' photograph and used it to create a set of statues based on the image.

Koons sold several of these structures, making a significant profit. Upon discovering the copy, Rogers sued Koons for copyright. Koons responded by claiming fair use by parody.

Outcome

The court found the similarities between the 2 images too close, and that a "typical person" would be able to recognize the copy. Koon's defense was rejected under the argument that he could have used a more generic source to make the same statement - without copying Rogers' work. Koons was forced to pay a monetary settlement to Rogers.

Significance

This is one of those famous cases that encompassed a larger issue in the art world, the issue of appropriation art. Can you build upon another's work to create your own original piece? And if you do so, does that constitute derivative work?

It also brought up the issue of photography as art, was photography just a documentation of the world, or is it a creative and artistic product? Neither of these issues was entirely answered by the case, of course, but it has also become a reference used in many cases afterward.

You can parallel this with vector-tracing a photograph for your design. Are you creating a derivative work that subtracts value from the original artist?

2. The Associated Press vs. Fairey
_

Photograph: Mannie Garcia - 2006 (via The New York Times); Poster: Shephard Fairey - 2008 (via Wikipedia)

Case

Famous street artist Shephard Fairey created the Hope poster during President Obama's first run for presidential election in 2008. The design rapidly became a symbol for Obama's campaign, technically independent of the campaign but with its approval.

In January 2009, the photograph on which Fairey allegedly based the design was revealed by the Associated Press as one shot by AP freelancer Mannie Garcia - with the AP demanding compensation for its use in Fairey's work. Fairey responded with the defense of fair use, claiming his work didn't reduce the value of the original photograph.

Outcome

The artist and the AP press came to a private settlement in January 2011, part of which included a split in the profits for the work.

Significance

Though there wasn't a court case and an actual verdict, this case created a lot of discourse around the value of work in these copyright battles. It's unlikely that Garcia's work could have ever reached the level of fame it did, if not for Fairey's poster. Garcia himself stated he was "so proud of the photograph and that Fairey did what he did artistically with it, and the effect it has had," but still had a problem with the fact that Fairey took the image without permission and without credit for it's originator.

Credit, credit, credit! On 99designs you cannot use licensed work - but in the right circumstances you can use stock imagery. When doing so, make sure everyone knows the source.

3. Cariou vs. Prince
_

Photograph: Patrick Cariou - 2000; Adaptation: Richard Prince - 2008 (both via artnet)

Case

Richard Prince is a well known appropriation artist - one who transforms the work of others to create new meaning in his own work. For an exhibition in the Gagosian Gallery, Prince appropriated 41 images from a photography book by French photographer Patrick Cariou, claiming fair use that he created new meaning out of the photographs. Cariou argued that it wasn't fair use, but copyright infringement.

Outcome

A judge ruled in favor for Cariou in 2011, claiming the changes made to Cariou's photographs weren't significant enough to constitute a change in meaning - fair use. However, the case is currently in appeal and the final decision has not yet been reached.

Significance

The initial ruling in this case in favor of Cariou has created huge divisions in the artistic community. It brings up questions about artistic intent and the subjectivity of art, asking "who was this judge to determine whether or not the appropriated artwork had enough meaning to be considered fair use" when the art could be interpreted differently by each person who viewed it. The jury is still out on this one.

Imitation vs. inspiration

Don't be a designer who creates work too close to that of another. You have to make sure you are creating something original and not derivative.

-

Update 4/25/2013

Not two weeks after this article was published, the original decision in this case was overturned and the judge ruled in favor of Prince for the majority of the works in dispute, claiming that Prince's work transformed the work in the way that it was aesthetically different, and thus acceptable under the argument of fair use.

Read more about the decision as well as the 5 pieces which are still under review by a lower court in The New York Times and Hyperallergic.

4. Modern Dog Design vs. Target Corporation
_

Illustrations: Modern Dog - 2008; T-shirt: Target (both via Business Insider)

Case

Seattle design firm Modern Dog utilized a series of sketches of dogs in their compendium put out by Chronicle Books in 2008. The firm alleges that illustrations from that design have been used in a T-shirt produced by Disney/Target for sale, and filed a lawsuit in 2011.

Outcome

TBD. There hasn't been a decision yet in this case but Modern Dog has been campaigning online pretty heavily for publicity and funds to help with its legal fees over the issue.

Significance

The Modern Dog case has brought to light a question burning in the mind of many designers and artists - what happens if a major corporation with many more resources than me, utilizes my artwork for profit?

Modern Dog was recently forced to sell their studio to cover the legal costs associated with this battle, so it's turning into a very extreme situation for them. We'll have to keep an eye out for how this progressed and continues to change the conversation around this issue.

Always defend your designs. Regardless of who you're going up against - if you think your design is in the right, then make it known.

5. Vanilla Ice vs. David Bowie/Freddie Mercury
_

Case

Vanilla Ice had a hit, in 1991, with Ice Ice Baby - it sampled but did not credit the song Under Pressure by David Bowie and Queen. Though at first denying it, Vanilla Ice later retracted the statement saying it was "a joke". Facing a lawsuit by the duo, Vanilla Ice 'fessed to sampling the work.

Outcome

The case was settled privately out of court with Ice paying an undeclared sum of money and crediting Bowie/Queen on the track.

Significance

There's really not a ton of meaning directly related to design with this one (except for, don't use other people's creative work!). But I couldn't resist adding it. This is one of the most hilarious copyright cases ever.

There are more cases out there! Any you have learned from?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 famous copyright infringement cases (what you can learn)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Copyright is never an easy issue. From Rogers vs. Koons, to Vanilla Ice vs. David Bowie, learn from these 5 famous copyright infringement cases...

# data[].attributes.body
Photograph: Art Rogers – 1985; Polychrome: Jeff Koons – 1988 (both via The Design Observer Group)
Legalities 30: Jeff Koons and Copyright Infringement

# data[].attributes.body
Photograph: Mannie Garcia – 2006 (via The New York Times); Poster: Shephard Fairey – 2008 (via Wikipedia₎

# data[].attributes.body
Photograph: Patrick Cariou – 2000; Adaptation: Richard Prince – 2008 (both via artnet₎

# data[].attributes.body
"This coming year marks the first time in two decades that a large body of copyrighted works will lose their protected status — a shift that will have profound consequences for publishers and literary estates, which stand to lose both money and creative control.

But it will also be a boon for readers, who will have more editions to choose from, and for writers and other artists who can create new works based on classic stories without getting hit with an intellectual property lawsuit."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image

Clockwise from top left: Kahlil Gibran; F. Scott Fitzgerald and his wife, Zelda; Agatha Christie; Jean Toomer; and Thomas Mann. Credit Credit Clockwise from top left: SSPL/Getty Images; Hulton Archive/Getty Images; Agence France-Presse - Getty Images; Penguin; Fred Stein Archive, via Getty Images

Nearly a century ago, the publisher Alfred A. Knopf released a slim book of spiritual fables by an obscure Lebanese-American poet and painter named Kahlil Gibran.

Knopf had modest expectations, and printed around 1,500 copies. Much to his surprise, the book - titled "The Prophet" - took off. It became a huge hit, and went on to sell more than nine million copies in North America alone.

Until now, the publishing house that still bears Knopf's name has held the North American copyright on the title. But that will change on Jan. 1, when "The Prophet" enters the public domain, along with works by thousands of other artists and writers, including Marcel Proust, Willa Cather, D. H. Lawrence, Agatha Christie, Joseph Conrad, Edith Wharton, P. G. Wodehouse, Rudyard Kipling, Katherine Mansfield, Robert Frost and Wallace Stevens.

This coming year marks the first time in two decades that a large body of copyrighted works will lose their protected status - a shift that will have profound consequences for publishers and literary estates, which stand to lose both money and creative control.

But it will also be a boon for readers, who will have more editions to choose from, and for writers and other artists who can create new works based on classic stories without getting hit with an intellectual property lawsuit.

Image

A 1923 copy of "The Prophet." The work will enter the public domain on Jan. 1. Credit Swann Auction Galleries

"Books are going to be available in a much wider variety now, and they're going to be cheaper," said Imke Reimers, an assistant professor of economics at Northeastern University who has studied the impact of copyright. "Consumers and readers are definitely going to benefit from this."

The sudden deluge of available works traces back to legislation Congress passed in 1998, which extended copyright protections by 20 years. The law reset the copyright term for works published from 1923 to 1977 - lengthening it from 75 years to 95 years after publication - essentially freezing their protected status. (The law is often referred to by skeptics as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act," since it has kept "Steamboat Willie," the first Disney film featuring Mickey, under copyright until 2024.)

Now that the term extension has run out, the spigot has been turned back on. Each January will bring a fresh crop of novels, plays, music and movies into the public domain. Over the next few years, the impact will be particularly dramatic, in part because the 1920s were such a fertile and experimental period for Western literature, with the rise of masters like F. Scott Fitzgerald, William Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway and Virginia Woolf.

"Eventually, these books belong to the people," said James L. W. West III, a Fitzgerald scholar. "We can have new attempts to edit and reinterpret all of these iconic texts."

Once books become part of the public domain, anyone can sell a digital, audio or print edition on Amazon. Fans can publish and sell their own sequels and spinoffs, or release irreverent monster mash-ups like the 2009 best-seller "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies."

Image

Vintage Classics is publishing a new edition of Robert Frost's "New Hampshire," which will feature the original woodcut art and some of his best-known poems, including "Nothing Gold Can Stay" and "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening."

Theater and film producers can adapt the works into movies, plays and musicals without having to secure rights. Rival publishing houses can issue new print editions, and scholars can publish new annotated versions and interpretations. Free digital copies will circulate online. At the start of the new year, Google Books, which has more than 30 million works scanned in its vast online digital library, will release full digital editions of works published in 1923, among them Edgar Rice Burroughs's "Tarzan and the Golden Lion" and Edith Wharton's "A Son at the Front."

It's difficult to say exactly how many works will enter the public domain this January, because some authors and publishers allowed their copyright to lapse, and some foreign-language books first published overseas in 1923 may remain under copyright for now, like Felix Salten's "Bambi." More than 130,000 copyright registrations were filed in 1923 for various creative works, but most of those were not renewed, according to John Mark Ockerbloom, a digital library strategist at the University of Pennsylvania.

Some publishers and the writers' heirs fear that losing copyright protections will lead to inferior editions with typos and other errors, and to derivative works that damage the integrity of iconic stories.

"Publishers are right to be concerned about a proliferation of unreliable editions, some of them probably not very good," said John Kulka, the editorial director of Library of America, a nonprofit organization that publishes American literary classics.

Still, many scholars and legal experts argue that American copyright law, which is mind-numbingly complex, has skewed toward enriching companies and the heirs of writers and artists at the expense of the public. When the first Copyright Act was passed in the United States in 1790, the maximum term was 28 years. Over the decades, lawmakers repeatedly prolonged the terms, which now stretch to over a century for many works. "It's worse than the tax code," said Rebecca Tushnet, an intellectual property expert at Harvard Law School. "The copyright term is way too long now."

Image

Next year, Penguin Classics is publishing new editions of several works from 1923, including Jean Toomer's "Cane." Credit Sonny Figueroa/The New York Times

Some studies show that extending copyright can actually have a negative impact on the sales and availability of books. A few years ago, Paul J. Heald, a law professor at the University of Illinois, used software that randomly sampled books available on Amazon, and discovered that there were more new editions of books published in the 1910s than from titles published in the 2000s. Publishers often stop printing books that aren't selling, but still retain the copyright, so no one else can release new editions. Once the books enter the public domain, a wider variety of new editions become available again, filling in a hole in the public and cultural record.

Legal experts say that Congress is unlikely to pass yet another copyright extension because the political dynamics have shifted over the decades, with growing public opposition to stringent intellectual property protections.

For readers and book buyers, the proliferation of competing texts and editions will mean more selection and cheaper books. In 2019, the digital publisher Open Road Media is publishing around a dozen newly available works from 1923, including e-books of Jean Toomer's "Cane," Gibran's "The Prophet," Sigmund Freud's "The Ego and the Id," P. G. Wodehouse's "The Inimitable Jeeves" and Christie's "The Murder on the Links," one of her early novels featuring the detective Hercule Poirot.

Legacy publishers are also snapping up newly available works. Penguin Classics is releasing new editions of "Cane," Gibran's "The Prophet" and Proust's "The Prisoner." Vintage Classics is publishing a new edition of Robert Frost's "New Hampshire" - which will feature the original woodcut art and some of his best-known poems, including "Nothing Gold Can Stay" and "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" - as well as Dorothy Sayers's "Whose Body?" and three new editions of classic Agatha Christie novels.

In anticipation of a flood of new editions of Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby" when the copyright expires in 2021, the Fitzgerald estate and his publisher, Scribner, released a new edition of the novel in April, hoping to position it as the definitive version of the text. The novel has sold around 30 million copies worldwide, and continues to sell more than 500,000 copies a year in the United States alone. But in two years, anyone with a laptop will be able to publish an e-book of the text, or sell fan fiction based on the story.

Image

An early copy of "The Great Gatsby," whose copyright expires in 2021. Fitzgerald's estate and his publisher, Scribner, released a new edition of the novel in April, hoping to position it as the definitive version of the text. Credit Sotheby's

Blake Hazard, Fitzgerald's great-granddaughter and a trustee of his estate, said she hoped some interesting new interpretations of the story would emerge. But she also worries about what would happen to the novel's legacy when the inevitable homages and retellings land, which will probably include unauthorized Gatsby sequels or novels told from Daisy Buchanan's perspective.

"I hope people maybe will be energized to do something original with the work, but of course the fear is that there will be some degradation of the text," Ms. Hazard said.

But publishers who specialize in classics see a tremendous opportunity to reintroduce old works. Some have been planning for this moment for decades.

Penguin Classics had a number of 1923 titles lined up for 1998, when the copyright for books published that year was set to lapse, but those plans were scrapped after Congress extended protections. About three years ago, Penguin's editorial team went back to their list of 1923 titles and began looking for classics that still resonate and sell well. Several jumped out, including "The Prophet."

John Siciliano, the executive editor of Penguin Classics, wanted something to distinguish its edition of "The Prophet" from the others, so he decided to commission a new introduction from a contemporary poet.

"I'd been thinking of who the perfect person would be, someone like Kahlil Gibran, a poet with mass appeal," he said. "It became obvious that Rupi Kaur was the one."

In January, Penguin will publish 20,000 copies of its edition of "The Prophet," with a new introduction from Ms. Kaur, a young Canadian poet whose large social media following has helped build a huge audience for her work. Mr. Siciliano hopes it will bring a new audience to Gibran's book.

"Having multiple editions of these works and renewed publication energy behind them enlarges the market rather than cannibalizing it," Mr. Siciliano said. "It's an opportunity to breathe new life into these works."

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Copyrights Lapse. What Next? 'The Prophet and the Zombie'?. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New Life for Old Classics, as Their Copyrights Run Out

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nearly a century ago, the publisher Alfred A. Knopf released a slim book of spiritual fables by an obscure Lebanese-American poet and painter named Kahlil Gibran. Knopf had modest expectations, and printed around 1,500 copies. Much to his surprise, the book - titled "The Prophet" - took off.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TL;DR version: Last year, I was threatened with a lawsuit over the pixel art album cover for Kind of Bloop. Despite my firm belief that I was legally in the right, I settled out of court to cut my losses. This ordeal was very nerve-wracking for me and my family, and I've had trouble writing about it publicly until now.

Note: I posted this on Twitter and Maisel's Facebook wall before it was deleted, but I'll repeat it here: I understand you may have strong feelings about this issue, but please don't harass him publicly or privately. Reasonable discussion about the case is fine; personal attacks, name-calling and abuse are not. We're all humans here. Be cool.

Still want the full story? Read on.
(Note: This post was reviewed by both my and Jay Maisel's legal counsel.)
Remember Kind of Bloop, the chiptune tribute to Miles Davis' Kind of Blue that I produced? I went out of my way to make sure the entire project was above board, licensing all the cover songs from Miles Davis's publisher and giving the total profits from the Kickstarter fundraiser to the five musicians that participated.

But there was one thing I never thought would be an issue: the cover art.

Before the project launched, I knew exactly what I wanted for the cover - a pixel art recreation of the original album cover, the only thing that made sense for an 8-bit tribute to Kind of Blue. I tried to draw it myself, but if you've ever attempted pixel art, you know how demanding it is. After several failed attempts, I asked a talented friend to do it.

You can see the results below, with the original album cover for comparison.

In February 2010, I was contacted by attorneys representing famed New York photographer Jay Maisel, the photographer who shot the original photo of Miles Davis used for the cover of Kind of Blue.

In their demand letter, they alleged that I was infringing on Maisel's copyright by using the illustration on the album and elsewhere, as well as using the original cover in a "thank you" video I made for the album's release. In compensation, they were seeking "either statutory damages up to $150,000 for each infringement at the jury's discretion and reasonable attorneys fees or actual damages and all profits attributed to the unlicensed use of his photograph, and $25,000 for Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) violations."

After seven months of legal wrangling, we reached a settlement. Last September, I paid Maisel a sum of $32,500 and I'm unable to use the artwork again. (On the plus side, if you have a copy, it's now a collector's item!) I'm not exactly thrilled with this outcome, but I'm relieved it's over.

But this is important: the fact that I settled is not an admission of guilt. My lawyers and I firmly believe that the pixel art is " fair use " and Maisel and his counsel firmly disagree. I settled for one reason: this was the least expensive option available.

At the heart of this settlement is a debate that's been going on for decades, playing out between artists and copyright holders in and out of the courts. In particular, I think this settlement raises some interesting issues about the state of copyright for anyone involved in digital reinterpretations of copyrighted works.

There are a lot of myths and misconceptions about "fair use" on the Internet. Everyone thinks they know what fair use is, but not even attorneys, judges, and juries can agree on a clear definition. The doctrine itself, first introduced in the 1976 Copyright Act, is frustratingly vague and continually being reinterpreted.

Four main factors come into play:

1. The purpose and character of your use: Was the material transformed into something new or copied verbatim? Also, was it for commercial or educational use?

2. The nature of the copyrighted work

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market

For each case, courts take these factors into account and render a verdict, occasionally contradicting the opinions of past judges and juries.

The crux of our disagreement hinges on the first factor - whether the Kind of Bloop illustration is "transformative."

In his influential paper on fair use, Judge Pierre N. Leval wrote, "Factor One is the soul of fair use." Stanford's Fair Use Center asks, "Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning? Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings?"

From the beginning, Kind of Bloop was a creative experiment. I was drawn to the contradiction between the textured, subdued emotion in Kind of Blue and the cold, mechanical tones of retro videogame music. The challenge was to see whether chiptune artists could create something highly improvisational, warm, and beautiful from the limited palette of 1980s game consoles. (I think we succeeded.)

Similarly, the purpose of the album art was to engage both artist and viewer in the same exercise - can NES-style pixel art capture the artistic essence of the original album cover, with a fraction of the resolution and color depth of an analog photograph?

It reinforced the artistic themes of the project, to convey the feel of an entire album reimagined through an 8-bit lens. Far from being a copy, the cover art comments on it and uses the photo in new ways to send a new message.

This kind of transformation is the foundation of fair use. In a 2006 verdict, the court found artist Jeff Koons' use of a fashion photo "adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message."

I don't think there's any question that Kind of Bloop's cover illustration does the same thing. Maisel disagreed.

The second fair use factor is the nature of the copyrighted work. Works that are published and factual lean towards fair use, works that are unpublished and creative towards infringement. While Maisel's photograph is creative, it's also primarily documentary in nature and it was published long before my illustration was created.

With regard to the third factor, although the illustration does represent the cover of Kind of Blue, it does so at a dramatically reduced resolution that incorporates few of the photograph's protectable elements. Courts routinely find fair use even where the entirety of an image is used.

The fourth factor considers the impact on the market value of the original work. It's obvious the illustration isn't a market substitute for the original: it's a low-resolution artistic rendering in the style of 8-bit computer graphics that is, at best, of interest to a few computer enthusiasts.

And it's worth noting that trying to license the image would have been moot. When asked how much he would've charged for a license, Maisel told his lawyer that he would never have granted a license for the pixel art. "He is a purist when it comes to his photography," his lawyer wrote. "With this in mind, I am certain you can understand that he felt violated to find his image of Miles Davis, one of his most well-known and highly-regarded images, had been pixellated, without his permission, and used in a number of forms including on several websites accessible around the world."

In practice, none of this matters. If you're borrowing inspiration from any copyrighted material, even if it seems clear to you that your use is transformational, you're in danger. If your use is commercial and/or potentially objectionable, seek permission (though there's no guarantee it'll be granted) or be prepared to defend yourself in court.

Anyone can file a lawsuit and the costs of defending yourself against a claim are high, regardless of how strong your case is. Combined with vague standards, the result is a chilling effect for every independent artist hoping to build upon or reference copyrighted works.

It breaks my heart that a project I did for fun, on the side, and out of pure love and dedication to the source material ended up costing me so much - emotionally and financially. For me, the chilling effect is palpably real. I've felt irrationally skittish about publishing almost anything since this happened. But the right to discuss the case publicly was one concession I demanded, and I felt obligated to use it. I wish more people did the same - maybe we wouldn't all feel so alone.

If you feel like it, you're still welcome to buy digital copies of Kind of Bloop (without the cover art) at kindofbloop.com. Donations can be made to the EFF, and you'll get a rad 8-bit shirt for joining. And if you have any ideas for an alternate album cover that won't land me in court, bring it on!

Special thanks to my lawyers (Chris, Erica & Ben), the EFF, Fred von Lohmann, and the team at Kickstarter for moral support.

More Fun with Art Appropriation

I'm collecting examples of reinterpretations of copyrighted works, like the ones interspersed in this post. Here's some more I found:

* Thomas Hooper's pixel recreations of famous album covers

* Norn Cutson's Record Collection, a book of illustrations based on album covers

* Format Magazine's hip-hop albums recreated in LEGO

* Videogame Minimalism, available as shirts

* Justin Russo's Minimalist Videogame Posters

* Howie Green's paintings of famous album covers

* Cliff Chiang's '80s album covers recreated with comic book heroes

* Brandon Heinley's pixel recreations of famous images in art and culture

* Collection of famous album covers in LEGO

* Benjamin Shaykin's Lo-Res Books, book covers abstracted to the edge of recognition

* Graphic Nothing's minimalist art and album cover remixes

* Kirby Ferguson's Everything Is A Remix is a thought-provoking and entertaining demonstration of how remixing is fundamental to all creativity, with hundreds of examples from Star Wars to Apple.

I've turned off comments, but I'd love to hear your thoughts and any more relevant examples. Send me an email or instant message, or find me on Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TL;DR version: Last year, I was threatened with a lawsuit over the pixel art album cover for Kind of Bloop. Despite my firm belief that I was legally in the right, I settled out of court to cut my ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Copyrightlaws.com: Copyright courses and education in plain English

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There is much misinformation about Instagram and copyright and what are the Terms of Use provided by Instagram. Below are Instagram's copyright-related Terms of Use. These Terms of Use were last revised 19 January 2013. The Terms are general enough to still be relevant and effective even though we often feel like the law and how we use digital content is changing each time we blink our eyes.

The discussions of these Terms are brief and descriptive and are not intended to provide an in-depth analysis or legal advice relating to the Terms. Consult a lawyer if you need specific advice or a legal opinion.

Instagram and Copyright, Terms of Use, Rights Section

Paragraph #1 of Instagram's Terms of Use under the Rights section states:

Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service, subject to the Service's Privacy Policy, available here http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/, including but not limited to sections 3 ("Sharing of Your Information"), 4 ("How We Store Your Information"), and 5 ("Your Choices About Your Information"). You can choose who can view your Content and activities, including your photos, as described in the Privacy Policy.

This paragraph clearly states that you own the photos or other images or content that you post on Instagram. Instagram does not become the owner of your posted content. Copyright law itself (according to the country where the images are reproduced or shared) is what governs the use of your Instagram photos and other content by any third parties. By virtue of posting images on Instagram, you are not giving up ownership of your images and for most uses outside of Instagram, any third party should be obtaining permission from you to use your images or other content.

There may be some situations such as fair use (in the U.S.) or fair dealing (in Canada and the U.K.) which allow people to use your images under certain circumstances without your permission.

Read more about copyright issues and Legally Using Images.

Instagram and Copyright, Terms of Use, Ownership Warranty Section

Paragraph #4 of Instagram's Terms of Use states:

You represent and warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on or through the Service or otherwise have the right to grant the rights and licenses set forth in these Terms of Use; (ii) the posting and use of your Content on or through the Service does not violate, misappropriate or infringe on the rights of any third party, including, without limitation, privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, trademark and/or other intellectual property rights; (iii) you agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies owed by reason of Content you post on or through the Service; and (iv) you have the legal right and capacity to enter into these Terms of Use in your jurisdiction.

This paragraph serves as a reminder that whatever content you post, make sure you actually own that content or have permission to post the content.

Instagram's Section on Reporting Copyright Violations

Instagram's section on Reporting Copyright and Other IP Violations states:

1. We respect other people's rights, and expect you to do the same.

2. We provide you with tools to help you protect your intellectual property rights. To learn more about how to report claims of intellectual property infringement, visit http://help.instagram.com/customer/portal/articles/270501.

3. If you repeatedly infringe other people's intellectual property rights, we will disable your account when appropriate.

Copyright Tips For Posting Content On Instagram

Some tips you should follow when posting content online:

Place a copyright symbol on your content

Include a link to your email so people can easily obtain permission from you prior to using your content

Post only low resolution images

Use watermarks on your content

You may also be interested in our online course Legally Using Images.

Want more helpful articles like this? Sign up and get copyright insights delivered to your inbox.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Who owns copyright for content posted on Instagram? - Copyrightlaws.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is much misinformation about Instagram and copyright and what are the Terms of Use provided by Instagram. Below are Instagram's copyright-related Terms of Use. These Terms of Use were last revised 19 January 2013.

# data[].attributes.body
"The point is: Copyright laws rewritten by major corporations to preserve income from nearly century-old creations have all but erased a generation of less famous writers and unknown works by well-known writers."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On Tuesday, Amistad Press, a division of HarperCollins, will release Zora Neale Hurston's long-unpublished first book, "Barracoon: The Story of the Last 'Black Cargo,'" edited by Deborah G. Plant. In late April, Vulture published excerpts from the book, which the magazine said had "languished in a vault" since 1931. I'm thrilled by the publication of Hurston's short book on such an important subject - but I wish that we could stop talking about unpublished manuscripts in such terms. In many cases, it's not, as such language suggests, scholarly neglect that hides these works from the public eye. Instead, the trouble begins with onerous and excessive copyright protections, protections that are meant to profit the Walt Disney Co. more than they are intended to enrich our understanding of American literature.

It's a problem that I've come to know well. Over the years, I've brought out - as a scholar or as an editor - previously unpublished work by Walt Whitman, Mark Twain, Robert Frost, Jack London, Paul Laurence Dunbar, Ezra Pound, and, yes, a group of Hurston's unpublished writings, edited by Pamela Bordelon. When I was selecting from the Hurston materials that Bordelon had collected, now nearly 20 years ago, I also obtained a copy of the typescript of "Barracoon" from the Smithsonian Archives. I knew about the typescript from reading Robert A. Hemenway's description of it in "Zora Neale Hurston: A Literary Biography," which had been published in 1977. The typescript was thin, just over a hundred pages, with a few emendations and additions in Hurston's handwriting, but it seemed complete and worthy of note. I looked into getting it published - but the rights to the work were unclear. Had the writing been conducted as part of Hurston's fieldwork for the Federal Writers' Project - making it a government work-for-hire and public domain? Or was it a separate literary work controlled by her estate? No one seemed to know, and no one was too interested in finding out. Unable to get answers, I eventually gave up on the effort.

Now, according to the Vulture introduction, the Zora Neale Hurston Trust has new representation, interested in getting unpublished works into print and monetizing those archives. That's great, from a reader's perspective, but it also reveals a larger problem where scholarship of literature between World War I and II is concerned. It's mostly due to the Walt Disney Co.'s efforts to protect ownership of a certain cartoon mouse. Over the years, the company has successfully worked to extend copyright restrictions far beyond the limits ever intended by the original authors of America's intellectual property laws. Under the original Copyright Act of 1790, a work could be protected for 14 years, renewable for another 14-year term if the work's author was still alive. In time, the maximum copyright grew from 28 years to 56 years and then to 75 years. In 1998, Sonny Bono championed an extension that would protect works created after 1978 for 70 years after the death of the author and the copyright of works created after 1922 to as long as 120 years.

This worked out great for Disney - which, not coincidentally, was founded in 1923 - but less so for the reputations of authors who produced important work between the 1920s and 1950s. Because copyright law became such a tangle, many of these works have truly languished. Here, Hurston is the rule rather than the exception. I have a file that I've kept over the years of significant unpublished works by well-known writers from the era: William Faulkner, Langston Hughes, William Carlos Williams, Hart Crane, Sherwood Anderson and Weldon Kees, among others. The works aren't really "lost," of course, but they are tied up in a legal limbo. Because of the literary reputations of those writers, their unpublished works will eventually see the light of day - whenever their heirs decide that the royalties are spreading a little too thin and there's money to be made from new works. But other important writers who are little-known or unknown will remain so because they don't have easily identifiable heirs - or, worse, because self-interested, or even uninterested executors, control their estates.
[If you miss Gawker, don't let Peter Thiel buy its archives]
Take, for example, the case of Lola Ridge. In 2011, former poet laureate of the United States Robert Pinsky, in a column for Slate, called Ridge "a terrific poet," and more than that "an early Modernist, radical in her politics, and an ardent feminist." She was, by his estimation, a link between William Blake and Crane, but Ridge's poems had mostly been out of print for nearly 70 years, in part because her body of work straddled the 1923 divide between public domain works and works controlled by copyright - and, for 40 years, the executor of Ridge's estate claimed to be working on a volume of collected poems as well as a biography, so she was unwilling to let any other scholars lay claim to the work. In 2007, Daniel Tobin published a slim volume of Ridge's public domain poems. Nearly a decade later, enough time had passed that Ridge had been dead for 70 years, making it possible for Terese Svoboda to publish Ridge's correspondence as part of her magisterial biography. Now, Tobin has released an expanded edition of Ridge's poems, including those from a volume published in 1927 (which were renewed but are now public domain), along with unpublished juvenilia. But the last two books published during Ridge's lifetime, "Firehead" (1929) and "Dance of Fire" (1935), remain tied up. The net effect is a slow-drip rediscovery, which has largely hampered efforts to restore Ridge to her rightful place in the canon.

The point is: Copyright laws rewritten by major corporations to preserve income from nearly century-old creations have all but erased a generation of less famous writers and unknown works by well-known writers. It is an effect that extends the life span of biases that have long silenced female writers, minority writers and working-class writers. "Barracoon," to return to the original example, was rejected for publication in 1931, because it was deemed too vernacular by Hurston's editor. Current copyright law unintentionally conspired to unnaturally extend the duration of that wrongheaded judgment for decades. That is why I bridle at the description of works like "Barracoon" as "lost." They are not lost - they have always been here - but they have repeatedly encountered power structures that block their publication. It's time for that to change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Perspective | How copyright law hides work like Zora Neale Hurston's new book from the public

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Tuesday, Amistad Press, a division of HarperCollins, will release Zora Neale Hurston's long-unpublished first book, "Barracoon: The Story of the Last 'Black Cargo,'" edited by Deborah G. Plant. In late April, Vulture published excerpts from the book, which the magazine said had "languished in a vault" since 1931.