Dear Artists, Don’t Stick Your Head In The Sand

Imagine one day you decide to start a podcast. You're very excited about your new venture and spend countless hours researching topics, writing copy and setting up your recording booth just so. But you know that if you want people to listen, it needs to be entertaining, and 45 minutes of you talking into a microphone won’t be. It's got to be a real multimedia experience; that's the difference between entertainment and lecture. Among other things, you'll need music, maybe some sound effects, and even archival audio material to spice things up. 

So where do you find those things? And when you find them, do you properly attribute them? Do you request permission to use them and pay a fair licensing fee? If there’s something specific you want, do you make a good faith effort to find the owner, or do you just take it? If you don’ have satisfactory answers to these questions, you may want to rethink your strategy before you hit "publish."

One hallmark of being an artist is excitement about your latest work and a strong desire to get it out into the world. You want people to see it, to comment on it, and hopefully, to enjoy it. Any artist who claims otherwise is lying - to you or themselves. It's easy in that situation to get tunnel vision and let caution fall by the wayside. When momentum is on your side, why get bogged down in administrative matters?

I understand that impulse as much as anyone. I've been an artist (I like to think I still am) and I see it with my clients.  But I want to take this space to urge you, dear artists, not to stick your head in the sand and assume no one will care about those administrative matters. Even if you don’t, I promise you someone else does. I’ve long advocated on this blog for sweating the business stuff because being an artist these days means being a business owner - whether or not its formalized and even if it's not a primary means of income. Using the copyrighted work of another without permission puts you and your business in jeopardy. Maybe not today and maybe not tomorrow, but eventually someone is going to notice, and they're not going to accept "I didn't know" as a reasonable excuse.

It's tempting to pin your hopes on fair use, but the problem with fair use is that to prove you’re covered by it, you need to defend yourself, which almost certainly means thousands of dollars in legal costs. Some courts view fair use as a right, while others view it merely as a defense (which means you can't assert fair use until AFTER you've been sued), but practically speaking, the only way to know for sure whether fair use applies is for the litigation to play out. Just saying the words "fair use" is no more a shield against litigation than yelling "I declare bankruptcy" a way of erasing debt.

We live in a litigious society. And IP holders, especially large corporate ones, have no compunction about hailing little guys into court over minor infractions. Defending yourself will take money you don’t have, and months or years out of your life. Sometimes, companies go bankrupt simply defending themselves in court. I can assure you that even if you win, it’s not worth it.

Which means - let’s say it together - you have to sweat the business stuff. You need to have things like contracts, bills of sale, release forms, licensing agreements, and business bank accounts. It means you probably have to incorporate your business. It means you can’t rely on fair use unless a lawyer tells you it’s okay. It means you have to ask permission to use work you didn’t develop. There’s a lot more to it than that, but you get the gist.

Don’t stick your head in the sand, hoping that ignorance will save you. Pay attention to the administrative matters. Build it into your schedule and workflow. If you hate doing it (welcome to the club), have a friend or spouse or family member help you. I’m not trying to rain on your parade. I’m here to tell you the rain is coming one way or another. I just want to make sure you have an umbrella.

Why Wayne Is The Bad Guy In His Own Movie: Wayne's World And Morality Clauses

Wayne’s World premiered 25 years ago this month and remains a high water mark in modern comedy filmmaking, which is why I guess everyone’s been talking about it lately. I love the movie for a lot of reasons: it’s a fully realized concept, unlike a lot of SNL spinoff films, the comedy holds up on repeat viewings, and it clocks in at a lean hour and a half (I don’t know about you but I HATE the modern trend of bloated two and a half hour comedies… if you can’t say it in 90 minutes or less, you can’t say it).

To celebrate its silver anniversary, HBO has been playing it a bunch, so I’ve had the chance to rewatch it. And while the movie is good as ever, something stuck in my craw this time. Wayne (Mike Myers) is kind of the bad guy in his own film. And the skeezy TV producer Benjamin (Rob Lowe) who the film tells us is the villain is actually on the right side of things. And it’s all because of a contract dispute.

Great. Another movie ruined by being a lawyer.

So anyway, a big plot point in the film is Wayne’s reluctance to giving his show’s sponsor, Noah Vanderhoff (Brian Doyle Murray), a weekly guest spot/interview, a concession Wayne agreed to in his contract. Late in the second act, Benjamin and Wayne butt heads over this issue in what is probably one of the best modern comedy bits in recent history:

Eventually, Wayne agrees to conduct the interview with Vanderhoff, but not before writing offensive remarks on his interview cards, humiliating the sponsor on live TV.  Needless to say, Benjamin isn't happy.

Benjamin: You've publicly humiliated the sponsor.

Wayne: Yeah!

Benjamin: You're fired.

Wayne: Fired? For that? Sh'yeah! Right! I'm out of here, and I'm taking my show with me.

Benjamin: We own the show.

Wayne: Aw, bite me.

Dammit Wayne! This is why you always read your contracts! And not just play-read like you did in that scene where Garth talks about sentient baby tongues.

So there’s two things going on here. First, despite Wayne’s incredulity at losing the show, it’s fairly common for a television network to buy the rights to a show they’re producing. If the creator has a lot of clout, the network will sometimes agree to license the rights instead, allowing the creator to retain ownership. But that’s exceedingly rare these days. They’d rather own it outright so they can control the property and all its ancillary revenue streams like VOD, streaming, distribution, merchandising, and spinoffs. The way the film plays it, it feels unfair (and maybe it is - how would Wayne know that giving up the rights to Wayne’s World is typical? It certainly seems that Benjamin took advantage of his inexperience), but it’s the way the business works. Wayne and Garth would’ve been smart to get a lawyer to look over the contract before signing it.

The second is whether Wayne actually breached his contract, warranting his dismissal. This is a hard call since we haven’t read his contract, but we can make some educated guesses based on the average talent agreement. While Wayne fought Benjamin on the Vanderhoff thing, he did eventually relent and conduct the interview. No one can deny that. So what gave Benjamin cause to fire him? My guess is a morality clause.

A morality clause is a provision found in certain types of employment contracts that forbids the employee from engaging in activities that may reflect badly on the employer. A violation of the clause could result in the contract being terminated. In essence, if you act like a dick and embarrass your employer, you could get fired. Word on the street was that Brian Williams was nearly let go from NBC for lying about past news reports (before being shuffled over to MSNBC) due to a morality clause in his agreement. Allegedly, that clause stated:

“If artist commits any act or becomes involved in any situation, or occurrence, which brings artist into public disrepute, contempt, scandal or ridicule, or which justifiably shocks, insults or offends a significant portion of the community, or if publicity is given to any such conduct . . . company shall have the right to terminate.”

In the movie industry, clauses like these go way back to the 1920's and 30's when the studio system wanted to exert control over movie stars’ ability to socialize, marry, and have babies, any of which - in the wrong light - could bring shame to the studio and cause box office losses. How can that be legal, you might ask? Well, it is because most stuff you contract to do is legal (outside of sex and crime), although hard to enforce and very rarely litigated on. I ran a case law search and turned up almost nothing useful for this blog post.

Knowing what kind of person Wayne was, it was likely that Benjamin would’ve inserted a morality clause into his contract. Now I know I said Wayne was wrong up top, but I’m also not saying that Benjamin is secretly the protagonist of the film. He’s definitely a sleaze ball. He manipulated Vanderhoff into sponsoring a show he wasn’t interested in, he took advantage of Wayne’s naiveté about the TV industry and allowed him to sign a contract he didn’t fully understand, and even if he wasn’t explicitly making moves on Cassandra (Tia Carrere), he did know she was dating Wayne and was spending an awful lot of time cozying up to her. 

But when it comes to contracts, the law is pretty clear that Benjamin was in the right. Wayne bore the responsibility to read and understand his contract before he signed it. He then humiliated his bosses openly and brazenly. In other words, he made his choice. And it’s the choice of a new generation.

*Sips Pepsi*

Mmm! Delicious!

On Making A Good Faith Effort To Get Permisison

Whenever a prospective client tells me they want to use a pre-existing work of art but they couldn't find the artist to ask permission, my first question is, "how hard did you look?" Their responses tells me a lot about them. Is this someone who is genuinely trying but stumped? Or is this a person who isn't interested in doing some hard work? If you've spent any time reading this blog, you know I'm big on getting permission before using someone else's work. First, it's legally much safer for you than relying on fair use. Second, it's just good karma. This is one arena where I'm not an adherent of Grace Hopper's immortal quip, "It is better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission."

You don't want to get sued for copyright infringement, which is why you should always ask permission before using someone else's work. And a cursory effort isn't going to cut it. No, you need to make a "good faith effort." In the law, we generally define that as what a reasonable person would determine is a diligent effort to produce a desired result. In other words, you need to do more than a quick Google search before calling it quits. It's tempting to think that because access to the internet is so ubiquitous, everyone must be online and instantly reachable. Unfortunately that's just not the case. Sometimes artists are hard to find, which means you gotta do some real sleuthing. 

So what does a good faith effort look like in the real world?

1. You have to determine if the rights are still owned by anyone. Generally speaking, art made prior to 1923 is in the public domain and therefore owned by no one. But even if you suspect that's the case, do the research anyway. You don't want to be sued by the estate of a long-dead jazz musician just because you assumed his work was up for grabs.

This chart is a useful tool to get your mind oriented around the issue. You should also use as many research tools as you (and your wallet) feel comfortable with. Google is a good place to start but not the be-all/end-all. There are private copyright search companies you can hire. You can hire a lawyer. You can also do a search through the Copyright Office database (as well as the Writer's Guild if the work is written) to track down ownership over a specific piece of work.

I should note that these tools will only help you determine if a work of art has been registered or published. Any work that hasn't been will require some more creative investigating on your part, I'm afraid.

2. You have to get in touch with the owner. This is where things usually fall apart for many of the people who contact me. Unfortunately there's no guaranteed way to find someone, especially if they don't want to be found. Certainly, you can start with the tools I mentioned above, and if the work is registered somewhere, there's usually some contact information associated with it. But ultimately, you may just have to call around.

I once had a client try to get in touch with a reclusive painter who had virtually no online presence. But through an exhaustive Google search, the client found a gallery in New Mexico that was selling some of that artist's paintings and with a little prodding, got the gallery to put her in touch with the painter.

Sometimes artists have managers or agents and you have to make contact through them instead. Go online and see if you can drum up client lists for some of those agencies. Maybe some of the rights to the work have been sold or licensed to a third party. Contact them and see if they can put you in touch. Maybe the artist is giving a lecture at a local university. Go to the lecture and try to meet him or her in person.

There's a fine line obviously between stalking and diligence and I strongly recommend you hew towards the latter. I don't recommend going to the Whitepages and soliciting them at home since that's pretty creepy and they probably won't respond well to it. But a communiqué sent through appropriate professional channels is okay.

As you can see, there are a lot of options open to you. You might have to get creative, and periodically do a gutcheck to see if what you're doing violates social norms, but these are all strategies you should consider before giving up.

3. Lastly, when you do get in touch, be nice, be friendly, but be direct with your ask. Don't waste their time and don't overstay your welcome. Get what you want, IN WRITING, pay for it, and get to work. There's no guarantee they'll cooperate, but if you act like an entitled brat, that's a surefire way to guarantee they won't.

Ultimately you may not find the artist, or you may find them and get no response. At that point, proceeding with their work becomes a question of risk. Did you make enough of an effort? Does fair use apply to the way you want to use the work? Before you make a judgment call on either of those questions, talk to a lawyer first. Making a good faith effort to find the artist and ask permission can sometimes be hard work, but from my seat it's critical to keeping your karma good and your ass out of court.

You Should Offer Licensing Options To Potential Infringers

“How do I protect my work online?”

I get asked that a lot. So much in fact that I’ve given half a dozen presentations on it over the past eighteen months. I could probably build my whole law practice around that one question and make a decent living at it. When you consider the ubiquity of the internet and the ease in which work can be taken and repurposed without your knowledge, you can see why it's such a pressing issue. Last year I partially addressed it in a blog post about licensing work to people who'd already infringed it. The gist of my argument was that instead of getting mad, maybe there was a way to get paid instead. After all, if the infringement has already taken place, why not try to make a few bucks off it?

But you don't have to wait until you've been infringed to make a deal. You should try and do it before the infringement even takes place. How? By offering licensing options to your work right up front!  As you'll see below, doing this is so simple you're going to kick yourself for not thinking of it sooner.

1. Be easy to contact. Wherever your work shows up - your website, Linkedin, Behance, Pinterest, Facebook, etc. - place your contact information in a conspicuous place. A lot of work is taken without permission because a potential buyer couldn’t get in touch with the artist, so this feels like an easy fix. Offer more than one way to get in touch so the buyer knows you're actually reachable. Some artists are understandably hesitant to give out their phone numbers, but as long as a buyer can reach you by email and at least one other method, you're good to go.

2. Tell them you're ready to do business. Put some variation of the phrase "Licenses available upon request. Contact for more information." clearly and visibly on any website where your work appears. This clearly communicates to the buyer that you're ready to do business. It's also good as an evidentiary CYA move if you ever had to prosecute an infringement case down the road. It's much harder for an infringer to argue in good faith that he didn't know your works were available for purchase if you state it in big bold letters. If certain pieces are not for sale, make sure they are clearly labeled as such. For example, "This image is not available for license or sale."

3. Be ready to do business when the requests come in. Have sales or licensing options ready to go. If the piece is for sale, indicate in writing whether or not the copyright (and all attendant ownership rights) is conveyed along with the actual physical piece. The buyer has a right to know if he’s getting the copyright or not. If you go the licensing route, you can use pre-existing licensing agreements like those at Creative Commons or you can make your own. If you choose the latter, be sure to include these terms:

  1. The amount of time the buyer can use your work;

  2. The purpose of his use;

  3. Whether or not he can make derivatives or copies;

  4. Whether or not he can distribute your work or its derivatives;

  5. The amount of the work he can use;

  6. The geographical location he can use your work in;

  7. Whether or not he must credit you as the author;

  8. Any fees, payments, royalties stemming from the use.

This isn't an exhaustive list of licensing terms (and they will vary depending on your comfort level), but it's a good start and should cover most scenarios. If you're savvy enough at programming, you can even create functionality in your website that allows buyers to license your artwork automatically, without ever needing to contact you.

Obviously this strategy isn't going to apply to all of you, and it won't always works either. Sometimes people just want to steal to see if they can get away with it. That said, it's my experience that most infringers don't realize they're doing something wrong and are more than willing to parlay with you if they only knew how. So give them the option. It's easy to do and the results could be an uptick in your business.  Considering how little effort this strategy requires, isn't it worth a shot

Paramount Releases Star Trek Fan Film Guidelines, Shows Other Studios How To Interact With Fans

Surely you’ve heard by now the story of the troubled fan film, Star Trek: Axanar. The film, which had earned over a million dollars from backers on Kickstarter and Indiegogo, was sued by Paramount for violating “innumerable copyrighted elements of Star Trek, including its settings, characters, species, and themes." While Star Trek fan films have been around forever (I was a Trekkie as a kid and remember seeing them a lot at meetings and conventions), Paramount was concerned about Axanar’s size and scale - high quality visual effects, name actors, feature-length runtime, etc. I guess they were concerned that a film of sufficient quality could impact not only the release of Star Trek Beyond, but its future slate of Trek films and spinoffs. 

Read More

When Cosplay Makes You Liable For Copyright Infringement

If you’re a single person wearing a Batman costume to San Diego Comic-Con, your use is almost certainly non-commercial and you are not liable for copyright infringement. But if you’re a business who specializes in making these costumes, the question becomes a bit more problematic. On its face, it’s easy to assume that it would constitute infringement. After all, DC Comics owns the character of Batman and his general look. If you were to visit your average costume shop looking for a Batman cowl to wear at Halloween, every single one of them would have “officially licensed product” printed on a tag somewhere. No costume designer wants to tempt fate by producing unlicensed Batman merch even if they could get away with it. That’s the smart move.

Read More

​Which Suburban White Mom Are You? The Art of Not Using Someone's Likeness For Your Next Meme

There's something fundamentally appealing about having something you created become part of the social zeitgeist, even if only for a little while. You get a little juice and maybe that turns into bigger opportunities for you. I'm all for that. But because of the way the internet works, it's super easy to take something that isn't your and reappropriate it without even thinking about it. Add to that peoples' misunderstanding of fair use, and you get a perfect storm of ignorance. 

Read More

You Can’t Copyright Style

You Can’t Copyright Style

Shortly after Star Wars: The Force Awakens came out, something happened that no one could have possibly predicted: people started making fan art. Shocking I know, but in a world where Donald Trump is the leading Republican candidate for President, I’m not sure anything’s a surprise anymore. Anyway, among those artists was Disney and Marvel illustrator Brian Kesinger. But Kesinger wasn’t interested in your run of the mill fan art. He wanted to do something special. The result of his labor: a series of adorable illustrations of Kylo Ren, Han Solo, Leia, and Darth Vader from The Force Awakens done in Bill Watterson’s inimitable style. Kesinger not only nailed the famed Calvin and Hobbes look, he also got Watterson’s voice.

Read More

On Bill Watterson’s Refusal To License Calvin and Hobbes

When Calvin and Hobbes went out of print twenty years ago, I think most people assumed it would return at some point. I know I certainly did. Calvin and Hobbes was a formative part of my youth - the sly brilliant writing and stark black and white illustrations providing color to my sense of childhood wonder and adventure. Watterson had the innate ability to put on the page something that spoke directly to the brash creative misfit lurking deep inside of me (or maybe not so deep if my mother is to be believed), like he was illustrating the comic for an audience of one. With something so clearly loved by its creator and so personal, I just couldn’t envision a world where there would be no more new ones. And if Calvin and Hobbes had been created by anyone other than Bill Watterson, we probably wouldn’t have heard the last of it. 

Read More

Copyright Versus Trademark: What’s the Difference?

A few weeks ago, Taylor Swift (yes, her again) filed for trademark protection (again) for various catchphrases related to her latest album, 1989, such as “This Sick Beat” and “Swiftmas.” Even though musicians do this all the time for merchandising purposes, for some reason it’s particularly newsworthy when Swift does it. But what grabbed my attention this time wasn’t the inexplicable backlash she got (if Ed Sheeran had done it, would people have been so quick to judge?), but the factually inaccurate headlines that went along with it.

Read More