In my opinion, the main debate in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, which was recently argued at the United States Supreme Court is-
“How to draw the line between the scope of the right to exclude the creation of derivative works, that copyright law confers upon the creator/owner, as against the purpose and character of use exemption to copyright infringement that is for users/downstream creators/people who seek access.”
The debate is riddled with delusions and misconceptions about the instrumental purpose of copyright law. Why?
The purpose and character of use exemption is often used to limit the scope of claims of copyright infringement and is considered to be applicable to all rights that are given to the owner of copyright (Re: Google v. Oracle (SC)). In Campbell, the Supreme Court devised the transformative purpose and character test to define the meaning of this exemption. It stated that if there is a transformed purpose, meaning, or message conveyed by the use of a work, the same would probably be exempted from infringement (upon balancing this with the other three factors of the fair use analysis). On the other hand, the right to make a derivative work, in its definition under §101 of the Copyright Act, states that a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted is a derivative work.
Seems like an oxymoron on the first blush, isn’t it? How can transformed uses be excludable and exempted from infringement at the same time?
Well, not really a conflict if we try to understand the concept behind (i) the right (the social relation or claims against others) that the derivative excludability confers, (ii) the instrumental purpose behind the purpose and character of use exemption, (iii) as well as their interaction with the reproduction right given to the owner.
As Talha Syed argues, the meaning of words in a statute is never given- whether plain, common or core, but is always rather a concept to further the social relation that the law seeks to instrumentally push. Talha argues- “We are not supposed to look for something out there by staring at the words, but rather think about our aims.” Just staring at words that may be identical but used in different contexts and concluding oxymoron-ish usage in lawmaking as a ground for an indeterminacy critique of the same, is a mistake and does not do much in terms of devising a solution. It is a mistake that forgets the need to contextualize every use of the word in a statute to be representative of a concept, which is never self-contained but relational and hence fluid- in terms of the context and aim it seeks to achieve, given the law is nothing but an instrumental tool to achieve a social goal and govern social relations. Reifying words keeps us confused throughout and keeps us thinking that law is indeterminate and is basically a character of what Libby Adler terms as an invitation to “lawyering 101”. Talha Syed argues that “To think it anything else—i.e., to think of it as some rules “out there,” with “words” having “given” meanings that must be divined (or destabilized)—is to seek to replace what is always, ultimately, a question of purposes and values with a pseudo-cognitive operation.”. We don’t need to be mystified by the words used in the statute seeming identical, and try to trace, mechanically, some perceivably authoritative sources which could result in such uses- and then try to understand what the word means in an effort to reduce its indeterminacy. This whole process completely forgets the core aim of the legal tool and analysis considering the same. It is just a tool to avoid any mental contact with the aim and purpose of the instrumental tool. This is what is happening in this case.
The Court, by trying to draw distinctions between the scope of the rights, focusing on what is the width of each of these competing claims- tracing levels of transformativeness – and thinking that anextension of the court-created transformative use criteria to alternate meaning or message would erode the transformation right given to the owner, because, well, at both places “transformation” is mentioned,is completely missing the point.
Let us go back to the purpose of Copyright law. Due to fairness and economic concerns, authors (who often assign these rights away) are, through a competing legal claim in the form of a property right, allowed to exclude people from using/accessing their work in the primary market as well as some secondary markets, so that they are able to extract optimal social value out of the same. The reason is not because it’s natural to them or because they used their mind and body and therefore others should not get to use it or free ride on it depriving originators of benefit. The reason is simple- we need to ensure these people get reasonably paid so that they are enabled to continue these creations because we as a society value these creations which help in subjective self-determination for a lot of us. Thus, we make a trade-off with access benefits. The fundamental reason for this is that we value such creations, and we want more of such meanings and messages which help our self-determination to be autonomously defined by exposure to many and variety.
This law is a tool to instrumentally achieve this goal. Every concept in this law, in its statutory framings, has to be remolded in light of it being a tool to achieve this particular goal. Focusing on identifying meanings of words within the tool, completely takes away any mental contact with this goal, assuming the said goal to be fulfilled by reading the words in a particular way anyway. No. That is fundamentally evasive of having any mental contact with the act of reasoning as to whether a particular interpretation even does anything to achieve the goal or not.
In light of the said purpose of copyright, let us look at this debate. The derivative right gives control to the author of the work over-exploitation of works in secondary markets which are in a different form. The concept of ‘form’ here has to be interpreted in light of the purpose of the law, to allow for protection only in secondary markets and not in the primary market- for which the right to reproduction already exists. And the illustrations in the provision clearly show the above concept as well: translation, dramatization, fictionalization, sound recording, abridgment etc. Apart from musical arrangements (which was heavily lobbied for, and I argue was mistakenly included within this elsewhere), there is rarely any change in the meaning and message of the original content that is represented in any of these forms that are illustrated. The content, meaning and message conveyed are essentially the same, the medium of representation being different. This coincides with the whole idea that copyright is only conferred upon original expression. By construing the scope of the secondary market to extend to forms of expression which although incorporate some of the primary content but convey a different meaning and message overall, in effect confers a right to exclude over by-products of the original work, which are not even original to the person to whom the right is actually conferred. What is the enablement for then? To prevent free-riding? I don’t see prevention of free riding beyond the original work (and by work, I mean the original meaning and message of the creator) being extended to any and every by-product, fulfilling any instrumental purpose of the law articulated above. It is just a moralistic claim with no basis, but rather an argument that- as I uttered a word from my mouth or used my hand to make a stroke on a canvas, so I get to exclude whoever uses it in whatever context. That has no instrumental role to play at all. In that case, let us extend market power to exclude on every act of imputing labor to include all by-products, even if the meaning and message of the by-product is fundamentally different and non-original to the person seeking the right. That just doesn’t make any sense. The whole point of giving an instrumental right is to show that we value such original creations- but then using the instrument to curb the ability of others to create more meanings and messages, is like pitting the instrument against the ultimate purpose of having the instrument in the first place. As Madhavi Sundar states- IP is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Being cloaked by indeterminacy concerns of the law influences lobbies and power to drive the ultimate meaning of the legal tool. Due to concerns around indeterminacy, as against trying to interpret the law from the purpose it sought to achieve, the scope of the derivative rights have been read extremely broadly over time to include works, which although do not involve, conceptually, any “form” based changes, but rather incorporate prior content to portray an alternate meaning or message, unless the purpose of representation has been shown to be different. The logic extended is to expand excludability to all channels through which the public experienced the work, even if in fragments, embedded in a different meaning or message. It is plainly wrong to be doing this. It shows the power of the political economy in driving meanings of legal tools which are shrouded and critiqued only through the lens of indeterminacy, as the right holders will always be able to use their capital to hire the best lawyers to draw their side of the interpretation to be the better one before the judges- capitalizing around the somewhat “confusing” image of the law. It is just problematic and ignorant of drawing any mental contact with the ultimate purpose that the law seeks to achieve.
Derivative rights do not and are not supposed to include transformed uses even for the same expressive purpose, but only transformed forms of the same expression that is the original creation of the primary author. The interpretation of the use of the concept of ‘form’ with transformed within the definition has a limited meaning of an alternate medium of representation/ an alternate physical embodiment distinct from the medium of expression of the original work. Any different interpretation, pitting the scope of the derivative right against the transformative purpose and character exemption under the Copyright Act, seriously undermines the instrumental nature and goals of copyright and its first amendment concerns. It just makes the co-existence of the derivative works right, reproduction right, and the purpose and character of use exemption to copyright infringement, which are all present in the same statute, completely incoherent.
Coming to the purpose and character of use exemption, many argue that purpose and character only mean transformed purpose- that is if a work is initially meant to entertain, and the user uses it for informative purposes- well then it satisfies the first-factor enquiry. Such a limited reading, influenced by the use of transformed in the definition of the derivative right, again ignores that transformations also happen to show different meanings. These are inquiries of exemptions to infringement- with the goal being to ensure that the enablement value of copyright does not, curb access and downstream usage concerns, beyond its optimal purpose. It once again runs contrary to the instrumental purpose of the law and romanticizes the instrument beyond its optimal need instead. The goal of having a paintbrush is to paint a picture. It is not to keep staring at the paintbrush and appreciating its look and romanticizing it and just continuously increasing its value without really painting anything using it.
Once we get hold of this concept, the case is quite easy actually, especially to the extent that the cert. was issued by the SC- on the limited issue of transformativeness of usage. It is clearly transformative and does not impact any form-based secondary market of the original creator, in relation to her original work, so long as the meaning and message that comes out of the new picture is different for people who are in the art world.
Any time the meaning and message is transformed be it in the primary market or the secondary market, and it does not simply seek to substitute the original works’ markets by trying to replace it portraying the same expression/meaning or message in the eyes of the viewer (someone who can identify given conceptual art is complicated to interpret), it satisfies the first fair use inquiry. Period. Irrespective of the rights conferred to the owner- this is the reasonable balance that the Copyright Act seeks to draw to ensure that the enablement is optimal and not beyond it, considering its bilateral tradeoff with access and use concerns and the instrumental goal that copyright, as a legal tool, seeks to achieve.
Given the large-scale implications of this case on appropriation art, sampling artists, artists performing various kinds of ontologically “transformative” culture- it is important to internalize this and ignore this misnomer of a debate, which in a prolonged manner, through the tool of the cloak of indeterminacy, is continuing to existentially estrange many cultural meanings and messages (something which the society clearly values) from existence in the society- paradoxical to the goal which the law, where this supposed indeterminacy is perceived to be embedded, seeks to achieve.
PHIL IP AND POLICY 