In preparing for the CAA’s conference this month, I was stopped in my tracks by a presenter agreement that required contributors to sign over extensive rights, made no reference to fair use, and put all liability risk on the speakers.
In the age of smartphone cameras and social media, it seems easier than ever for members of the public to freely share pictures of contemporary art.
The New York Times is suing independent publisher PowerHouse Books and its CEO, Daniel Power, over a series of images appearing in a book that’s highly critical of the Gray Lady’s coverage of war.
The convention has been to let media companies, particularly television channels, use newsworthy footage without paying a fee because it’s in the public interest to disseminate the images.
Hoping to remedy pervasive and often crippling uncertainty among artists and art professionals over how and when to invoke fair use when dealing with copyrighted materials, the College Art Association (CAA) has released a “Code of Best Practices in Fair Use.”
Over at Gawker, John Cook has posted a highly entertaining video commissioned by the Pentagon in 2001 to educate its staff on protocol for handling Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Visual art professionals are not making use of fair use, a new report issued by the College Art Association (CAA) says, in large part because they’re concerned about the repercussions of not obtaining copyright permissions.
Wednesday night, a decision by a three-judge appellate court panel marked a turnaround in the closely watched copyright infringement case Cariou v. Prince, pitting photographer Patrick Cariou against art star Richard Prince. Hyperallergic consults intellectual property expert Peter Friedman on the new outcome, with further exclusive commentary from Cariou’s attorney.
An op-ed on the current Prince v Cariou appeal and how it’s about money.
It’s a cruel world that makes a thief out of an adoring fan. Erik den Breejen is a keen Beach Boys fan and one who knows, now, what the back of a beloved hand feels like.
‘Transformative use’ is just mucking things up. That’s what I think. Providing a pivot for the Cariou v Prince case and the only real point of interest no matter what the pundits say, transformative use, instead of the fog-clearing test that it was supposed to be, has become the main particulate in a legal fog of war that has lasted three years now. Thus far, the dueling Cariou v Prince briefs have added new certainty to my theory that transformative use is a singularly unhelpful notion.