[Leica] Re: Fair use

[h_arche at yahoo.com (H. Ball Arche)]

> The Supreme Court has ruled that satire, if obviously such,
> is not protected by copyright.

Umm, I'm not sure about that, exactly; what I was getting at is that the 
source material for the satire, parody, or spoof is unprotected. I think 
that's what you meant, Marc, I just wanted to clarify.

The question of artist's sourcing from found objects and images is a large 
part of the history of Modernism, and all subsequent art movements. I wonder 
if the guy who took the head-shot of Lauren Becall that Joseph Cornell used 
in his box-homage to her thought he could sue, just to finger one of a 
gazillion possible examples. 

On the other hand, Jeff Koons has a win-one, lose-one record, for using 
found photos. The win is more recent, and is seen as a reversal of the 
earlier loss (see Rogers v. Koons, & Blanch v. Koons)

--- On Sun, 2/22/09, Marc James Small <marcsmall@comcast.net> wrote:

> From: Marc James Small <marcsmall@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Fair use
> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org>
> Date: Sunday, February 22, 2009, 2:58 PM
> "Fair Use" is really intended for academic and
> publishing use in commentary and review.  It might include,
> of course, a review of, say, a photographic exhibit, but it
> does not include an extension to simply ripping off someone
> else's work.
> 
> By way of example, I am currently reading Carlos
> d'Este's WARRIOR:  A LIFE OF WINSTON CHURCHILL AT
> WAR 1874 - 1945.  I will write a review of this for several
> maritime and military history lists to which I subscribe.  I
> will probably include specific quotations.  That is
> permissible, even if the review gets picked up by a
> periodical and I am paid for it.  But such fair use must
> include full attribution or, at the least, have the
> attribution available if questioned about it.
> 
> It's really not that odd a doctrine.  I cannot, of
> course, take a paragraph from d'Este and try to pass it
> off as my own.
> 
> The Supreme Court has ruled that satire, if obviously such,
> is not protected by copyright.  This decision arose out of a
> suit against Limbaugh and Shanklin for their spoofing of
> rock songs, such as "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iraq!" to
> the tune of the Beach Boy's "Barbara Ann". 
> All of those gazillions of spoofs on American Gothic are
> similarly protected.  And that portrait of Churchill by
> Karsch has been redone a number of times, often with a
> bull-dog dressed up as Churchill was.  Again, that is
> protected speech.
> 
> Marc
> 
> 
> msmall@aya.yale.edu
> Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir!
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more
> information