the most important early victory being Millar v. Taylor.
</para>
<para>
-Millar was a bookseller who in 1729 had purchased the rights to
-James Thomson's poem "The Seasons." Millar complied with the
- requirements
-of the Statute of Anne, and therefore received the full
- protection
-of the statute. After the term of copyright ended, Robert Taylor
-began printing a competing volume. Millar sued, claiming a perpetual
-common law right, the Statute of Anne notwithstanding.<footnote><para>
+Millar was a bookseller who in 1729 had purchased the rights to James
+Thomson's poem "The Seasons." Millar complied with the requirements of
+the Statute of Anne, and therefore received the full protection of the
+statute. After the term of copyright ended, Robert Taylor began
+printing a competing volume. Millar sued, claiming a perpetual common
+law right, the Statute of Anne notwithstanding.<footnote><para>
<!-- f11 -->
-Howard B. Abrams, "The Historic Foundation of American Copyright
-Law: Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright," Wayne Law
- Review
-29 (1983): 1152.
+Howard B. Abrams, "The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
+Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright," Wayne Law Review 29
+(1983): 1152.
</para></footnote>
</para>
<para>
-Astonishingly to modern lawyers, one of the greatest judges in
- English
+Astonishingly to modern lawyers, one of the greatest judges in English
history, Lord Mansfield, agreed with the booksellers. Whatever
protection the Statute of Anne gave booksellers, it did not, he held,
-extinguish any common law right. The question was whether the
-common law would protect the author against subsequent "pirates."
+extinguish any common law right. The question was whether the common
+law would protect the author against subsequent "pirates."
Mansfield's answer was yes: The common law would bar Taylor from
-reprinting Thomson's poem without Millar's permission. That
- common
-law rule thus effectively gave the booksellers a perpetual right to
+reprinting Thomson's poem without Millar's permission. That common law
+rule thus effectively gave the booksellers a perpetual right to
control the publication of any book assigned to them.
</para>
<para>
-Considered as a matter of abstract justice—reasoning as if justice
-were just a matter of logical deduction from first principles—Mansfield's
-conclusion might make some sense. But what it ignored was the larger
-issue that Parliament had struggled with in 1710: How best to limit
+Considered as a matter of abstract justice—reasoning as if
+justice were just a matter of logical deduction from first
+principles—Mansfield's conclusion might make some sense. But
+what it ignored was the larger issue that Parliament had struggled
+with in 1710: How best to limit
<!-- PAGE BREAK 103 -->
the monopoly power of publishers? Parliament's strategy was to offer a
term for existing works that was long enough to buy peace in 1710, but
short enough to assure that culture would pass into competition within
-a reasonable period of time. Within twenty-one years, Parliament
- believed,
-Britain would mature from the controlled culture that the
+a reasonable period of time. Within twenty-one years, Parliament
+believed, Britain would mature from the controlled culture that the
Crown coveted to the free culture that we inherited.
</para>
<para>
</para>
<para>
The House of Lords was an odd institution. Legal questions were
-presented to the House and voted upon first by the "law lords,"
- members
-of special legal distinction who functioned much like the Justices
-in our Supreme Court. Then, after the law lords voted, the House of
-Lords generally voted.
+presented to the House and voted upon first by the "law lords,"
+members of special legal distinction who functioned much like the
+Justices in our Supreme Court. Then, after the law lords voted, the
+House of Lords generally voted.
</para>
<para>
The reports about the law lords' votes are mixed. On some counts,
<para>
It is hard for us to imagine, but this decision by the House of Lords
fueled an extraordinarily popular and political reaction. In Scotland,
-where most of the "pirate publishers" did their work, people celebrated
-the decision in the streets. As the Edinburgh Advertiser reported, "No
-private cause has so much engrossed the attention of the public, and
-none has been tried before the House of Lords in the decision of
-which so many individuals were interested." "Great rejoicing in
- Edinburgh
-upon victory over literary property: bonfires and
- illuminations."<footnote><para>
+where most of the "pirate publishers" did their work, people
+celebrated the decision in the streets. As the Edinburgh Advertiser
+reported, "No private cause has so much engrossed the attention of the
+public, and none has been tried before the House of Lords in the
+decision of which so many individuals were interested." "Great
+rejoicing in Edinburgh upon victory over literary property: bonfires
+and illuminations."<footnote><para>
<!-- f13 -->
Rose, 97.
</para></footnote>
</para>
<para>
In London, however, at least among publishers, the reaction was
-equally strong in the opposite direction. The Morning Chronicle
- reported:
+equally strong in the opposite direction. The Morning Chronicle
+reported:
</para>
<blockquote>
<para>
-By the above decision . . . near 200,000 pounds worth of what
-was honestly purchased at public sale, and which was yesterday
-thought property is now reduced to nothing. The Booksellers of
-London and Westminster, many of whom sold estates and houses
-to purchase Copy-right, are in a manner ruined, and those who
-after many years industry thought they had acquired a
- competency
-to provide for their families now find themselves without a
-shilling to devise to their successors.<footnote><para>
+By the above decision . . . near 200,000 pounds worth of what was
+honestly purchased at public sale, and which was yesterday thought
+property is now reduced to nothing. The Booksellers of London and
+Westminster, many of whom sold estates and houses to purchase
+Copy-right, are in a manner ruined, and those who after many years
+industry thought they had acquired a competency to provide for their
+families now find themselves without a shilling to devise to their
+successors.<footnote><para>
<!-- f14 -->
Ibid.
</para></footnote>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 105 -->
"Ruined" is a bit of an exaggeration. But it is not an exaggeration to
say that the change was profound. The decision of the House of Lords
-meant that the booksellers could no longer control how culture in
- England
-would grow and develop. Culture in England was thereafter free.
-Not in the sense that copyrights would not be respected, for of course,
-for a limited time after a work was published, the bookseller had an
- exclusive
-right to control the publication of that book. And not in the
-sense that books could be stolen, for even after a copyright expired, you
-still had to buy the book from someone. But free in the sense that the
-culture and its growth would no longer be controlled by a small group
-of publishers. As every free market does, this free market of free culture
-would grow as the consumers and producers chose. English culture
-would develop as the many English readers chose to let it develop—
-chose in the books they bought and wrote; chose in the memes they
-repeated and endorsed. Chose in a competitive context, not a context
-in which the choices about what culture is available to people and
-how they get access to it are made by the few despite the wishes of
-the many.
-</para>
-<para>
-At least, this was the rule in a world where the Parliament is
- antimonopoly,
-resistant to the protectionist pleas of publishers. In a world
-where the Parliament is more pliant, free culture would be less
- protected.
+meant that the booksellers could no longer control how culture in
+England would grow and develop. Culture in England was thereafter
+free. Not in the sense that copyrights would not be respected, for of
+course, for a limited time after a work was published, the bookseller
+had an exclusive right to control the publication of that book. And
+not in the sense that books could be stolen, for even after a
+copyright expired, you still had to buy the book from someone. But
+free in the sense that the culture and its growth would no longer be
+controlled by a small group of publishers. As every free market does,
+this free market of free culture would grow as the consumers and
+producers chose. English culture would develop as the many English
+readers chose to let it develop— chose in the books they bought
+and wrote; chose in the memes they repeated and endorsed. Chose in a
+competitive context, not a context in which the choices about what
+culture is available to people and how they get access to it are made
+by the few despite the wishes of the many.
+</para>
+<para>
+At least, this was the rule in a world where the Parliament is
+antimonopoly, resistant to the protectionist pleas of publishers. In a
+world where the Parliament is more pliant, free culture would be less
+protected.
</para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 106 -->
</sect1>
</para>
<para>
In 1990, Else was working on a documentary about Wagner's Ring
-Cycle. The focus was stagehands at the San Francisco Opera.
- Stagehands
-are a particularly funny and colorful element of an opera.
- During
-a show, they hang out below the stage in the grips' lounge and in
-the lighting loft. They make a perfect contrast to the art on the stage.
+Cycle. The focus was stagehands at the San Francisco Opera.
+Stagehands are a particularly funny and colorful element of an opera.
+During a show, they hang out below the stage in the grips' lounge and
+in the lighting loft. They make a perfect contrast to the art on the
+stage.
</para>
<para>
-During one of the performances, Else was shooting some
- stagehands
+During one of the performances, Else was shooting some stagehands
playing checkers. In one corner of the room was a television set.
-Playing on the television set, while the stagehands played checkers and
-the opera company played Wagner, was The Simpsons. As Else judged
+Playing on the television set, while the stagehands played checkers
+and the opera company played Wagner, was The Simpsons. As Else judged
<!-- PAGE BREAK 107 -->
it, this touch of cartoon helped capture the flavor of what was special
about the scene.
unless "fair use" or some other privilege applies.
</para>
<para>
-Else called Simpsons creator Matt Groening's office to get
- permission.
-Groening approved the shot. The shot was a
- four-and-a-halfsecond
-image on a tiny television set in the corner of the room. How
-could it hurt? Groening was happy to have it in the film, but he told
-Else to contact Gracie Films, the company that produces the program.
+Else called Simpsons creator Matt Groening's office to get permission.
+Groening approved the shot. The shot was a four-and-a-halfsecond image
+on a tiny television set in the corner of the room. How could it hurt?
+Groening was happy to have it in the film, but he told Else to contact
+Gracie Films, the company that produces the program.
</para>
<para>
Gracie Films was okay with it, too, but they, like Groening, wanted
Else said. He was just confirming the permission with Fox.
</para>
<para>
-Then, as Else told me, "two things happened. First we
- discovered
-. . . that Matt Groening doesn't own his own creation—or at least
-that someone [at Fox] believes he doesn't own his own creation." And
-second, Fox "wanted ten thousand dollars as a licensing fee for us to use
-this four-point-five seconds of . . . entirely unsolicited Simpsons which
-was in the corner of the shot."
+Then, as Else told me, "two things happened. First we discovered
+. . . that Matt Groening doesn't own his own creation—or at
+least that someone [at Fox] believes he doesn't own his own creation."
+And second, Fox "wanted ten thousand dollars as a licensing fee for us
+to use this four-point-five seconds of . . . entirely unsolicited
+Simpsons which was in the corner of the shot."
</para>
<para>
-Else was certain there was a mistake. He worked his way up to
-someone he thought was a vice president for licensing, Rebecca
- Herrera.
-He explained to her, "There must be some mistake here. . . .
-We're asking for your educational rate on this." That was the
- educational
+Else was certain there was a mistake. He worked his way up to someone
+he thought was a vice president for licensing, Rebecca Herrera. He
+explained to her, "There must be some mistake here. . . . We're
+asking for your educational rate on this." That was the educational
rate, Herrera told Else. A day or so later, Else called again to
confirm what he had been told.
</para>
<para>
-"I wanted to make sure I had my facts straight," he told me. "Yes,
-you have your facts straight," she said. It would cost $10,000 to use the
-clip of The Simpsons in the corner of a shot in a documentary film about
+"I wanted to make sure I had my facts straight," he told me. "Yes, you
+have your facts straight," she said. It would cost $10,000 to use the
+clip of The Simpsons in the corner of a shot in a documentary film
+about
<!-- PAGE BREAK 108 -->
Wagner's Ring Cycle. And then, astonishingly, Herrera told Else, "And
-if you quote me, I'll turn you over to our attorneys." As an assistant to
-Herrera told Else later on, "They don't give a shit. They just want the
-money."
+if you quote me, I'll turn you over to our attorneys." As an assistant
+to Herrera told Else later on, "They don't give a shit. They just want
+the money."
</para>
<para>
-Else didn't have the money to buy the right to replay what was
- playing
+Else didn't have the money to buy the right to replay what was playing
on the television backstage at the San Francisco Opera. To reproduce
-this reality was beyond the documentary filmmaker's budget. At the very
-last minute before the film was to be released, Else digitally replaced the
-shot with a clip from another film that he had worked on, The Day After
-Trinity, from ten years before.
+this reality was beyond the documentary filmmaker's budget. At the
+very last minute before the film was to be released, Else digitally
+replaced the shot with a clip from another film that he had worked on,
+The Day After Trinity, from ten years before.
</para>
<para>
-There's no doubt that someone, whether Matt Groening or Fox,
-owns the copyright to The Simpsons. That copyright is their property.
-To use that copyrighted material thus sometimes requires the
- permission
-of the copyright owner. If the use that Else wanted to make of the
+There's no doubt that someone, whether Matt Groening or Fox, owns the
+copyright to The Simpsons. That copyright is their property. To use
+that copyrighted material thus sometimes requires the permission of
+the copyright owner. If the use that Else wanted to make of the
Simpsons copyright were one of the uses restricted by the law, then he
would need to get the permission of the copyright owner before he
-could use the work in that way. And in a free market, it is the owner of
-the copyright who gets to set the price for any use that the law says the
-owner gets to control.
+could use the work in that way. And in a free market, it is the owner
+of the copyright who gets to set the price for any use that the law
+says the owner gets to control.
</para>
<para>
-For example, "public performance" is a use of The Simpsons that
-the copyright owner gets to control. If you take a selection of favorite
+For example, "public performance" is a use of The Simpsons that the
+copyright owner gets to control. If you take a selection of favorite
episodes, rent a movie theater, and charge for tickets to come see "My
-Favorite Simpsons," then you need to get permission from the
- copyright
+Favorite Simpsons," then you need to get permission from the copyright
owner. And the copyright owner (rightly, in my view) can charge
-whatever she wants—$10 or $1,000,000. That's her right, as set by
-the law.
+whatever she wants—$10 or $1,000,000. That's her right, as set
+by the law.
</para>
<para>
But when lawyers hear this story about Jon Else and Fox, their first
thought is "fair use."<footnote><para>
<!-- f1 -->
-For an excellent argument that such use is "fair use," but that lawyers don't
-permit recognition that it is "fair use," see Richard A. Posner with William
-F. Patry, "Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the Wake of Eldred " (draft on
-file with author), University of Chicago Law School, 5 August 2003.
+For an excellent argument that such use is "fair use," but that
+lawyers don't permit recognition that it is "fair use," see Richard
+A. Posner with William F. Patry, "Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the
+Wake of Eldred " (draft on file with author), University of Chicago
+Law School, 5 August 2003.
</para></footnote>
-Else's use of just 4.5 seconds of an indirect shot
-of a Simpsons episode is clearly a fair use of The Simpsons—and fair use
-does not require the permission of anyone.
+Else's use of just 4.5 seconds of an indirect shot of a Simpsons
+episode is clearly a fair use of The Simpsons—and fair use does
+not require the permission of anyone.
</para>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 109 -->
</para>
<blockquote>
<para>
-The Simpsons fiasco was for me a great lesson in the gulf
- between
-what lawyers find irrelevant in some abstract sense, and
-what is crushingly relevant in practice to those of us actually
-trying to make and broadcast documentaries. I never had any
-doubt that it was "clearly fair use" in an absolute legal sense. But
-I couldn't rely on the concept in any concrete way. Here's why:
+The Simpsons fiasco was for me a great lesson in the gulf between what
+lawyers find irrelevant in some abstract sense, and what is crushingly
+relevant in practice to those of us actually trying to make and
+broadcast documentaries. I never had any doubt that it was "clearly
+fair use" in an absolute legal sense. But I couldn't rely on the
+concept in any concrete way. Here's why:
</para>
<orderedlist numeration="arabic">
<listitem><para>
<!-- 1. -->
-Before our films can be broadcast, the network requires
-that we buy Errors and Omissions insurance. The carriers
- require
-a detailed "visual cue sheet" listing the source and
- licensing
-status of each shot in the film. They take a dim view of
-"fair use," and a claim of "fair use" can grind the application
-process to a halt.
+Before our films can be broadcast, the network requires that we buy
+Errors and Omissions insurance. The carriers require a detailed
+"visual cue sheet" listing the source and licensing status of each
+shot in the film. They take a dim view of "fair use," and a claim of
+"fair use" can grind the application process to a halt.
</para></listitem>
<listitem><para>
<!-- 2. -->
-I probably never should have asked Matt Groening in the
-first place. But I knew (at least from folklore) that Fox had a
-history of tracking down and stopping unlicensed Simpsons
-usage, just as George Lucas had a very high profile litigating
-Star Wars usage. So I decided to play by the book, thinking
-that we would be granted free or cheap license to four seconds
-of Simpsons. As a documentary producer working to
- exhaustion
-on a shoestring, the last thing I wanted was to risk legal
-trouble, even nuisance legal trouble, and even to defend a
+I probably never should have asked Matt Groening in the first
+place. But I knew (at least from folklore) that Fox had a history of
+tracking down and stopping unlicensed Simpsons usage, just as George
+Lucas had a very high profile litigating Star Wars usage. So I decided
+to play by the book, thinking that we would be granted free or cheap
+license to four seconds of Simpsons. As a documentary producer working
+to exhaustion on a shoestring, the last thing I wanted was to risk
+legal trouble, even nuisance legal trouble, and even to defend a
principle.
</para></listitem>
<listitem><para>
<!-- 3. -->
-I did, in fact, speak with one of your colleagues at Stanford
-Law School . . . who confirmed that it was fair use. He also
-confirmed that Fox would "depose and litigate you to within
-an inch of your life," regardless of the merits of my claim. He
-made clear that it would boil down to who had the bigger
- legal
-department and the deeper pockets, me or them.
+I did, in fact, speak with one of your colleagues at Stanford Law
+School . . . who confirmed that it was fair use. He also confirmed
+that Fox would "depose and litigate you to within an inch of your
+life," regardless of the merits of my claim. He made clear that it
+would boil down to who had the bigger legal department and the deeper
+pockets, me or them.
<!-- PAGE BREAK 110 -->
</para></listitem>
<listitem><para>
</orderedlist>
</blockquote>
<para>
-In theory, fair use means you need no permission. The theory
- therefore
-supports free culture and insulates against a permission culture.
-But in practice, fair use functions very differently. The fuzzy lines of
-the law, tied to the extraordinary liability if lines are crossed, means
-that the effective fair use for many types of creators is slight. The law
-has the right aim; practice has defeated the aim.
+In theory, fair use means you need no permission. The theory therefore
+supports free culture and insulates against a permission culture. But
+in practice, fair use functions very differently. The fuzzy lines of
+the law, tied to the extraordinary liability if lines are crossed,
+means that the effective fair use for many types of creators is
+slight. The law has the right aim; practice has defeated the aim.
</para>
<para>
This practice shows just how far the law has come from its
-eighteenth-century roots. The law was born as a shield to protect
- publishers'
-profits against the unfair competition of a pirate. It has matured
-into a sword that interferes with any use, transformative or not.
+eighteenth-century roots. The law was born as a shield to protect
+publishers' profits against the unfair competition of a pirate. It has
+matured into a sword that interferes with any use, transformative or
+not.
</para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 111 -->
</sect1>
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / blobdiff