Update: Pirate Bay’s moved yet again! TorrentFreak reports today that when Swedish prosecutors moved to seize Pirate Bay’s Swedish (.SE) and Icelandic (.IS) domains, Pirate Bay swiftly migrated its virtual home to Sint Maarten, proprietor of the .SX top-level domain. Sint Maarten, a constituent country of the Netherlands, comprises the southern half of the Caribbean island Saint Martin.
The Pirate Party, an Internet libertarian group, has been on the political map for a while, particularly in Europe. It has gained seats in state legislatures (in Germany) and, through a coalition, a senate seat in a national legislature (in the Czech Republic). It now claims its first national, directly elected representative, in the Icelandic parliament.
It’s been an especially big month for the piracy minded in Iceland. Last week, Iceland became the virtual home of file-sharing promoter Pirate Bay. Pirate Bay, no longer welcome in its home country of Sweden, had briefly moved its site from a Swedish domain (.SE) to Greenland-based domain (.GL). Greenland’s domain name host, however, quickly booted Pirate Bay, so it moved again, to Iceland (.IS). It seems to have found a more hospitable home there, at least for the moment. TorrentFreak reported last week that Iceland’s top-level domain name registrar had no plans to kick out Pirate Bay.
What does the Pirate Party’s parliamentary victory mean? Leo Mirani at Quartz, a business news site, thinks it means the Pirate Party will need to grow up:
…the Pirate Party will need to refine its ideology and find a balance between the ideal vision of online freedom it espouses and the unsavoury activities and people it can easily find itself associated with. That is a tricky line to walk, especially since it can’t pick its supporters and members.
On Thursday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a trial court’s decision, ruling that an artist’s uses of 25 copyrighted photographs were sufficiently transformative to be protected by copyright’s fair use defense. The court was uncertain, however, whether the artist’s uses of five other photographs should be considered adequately transformative to trigger the defense. The court’s opinion, Cariou v. Prince, is available here.
The artist, Richard Prince, had copied the work of photographer Patrick Cariou, who had taken the photographs over a six-year period in Jamaica. Cariou had published the collection in a book, “Yes Rasta,” in 2000.
Prince used 30 photos from Cariou’s book in creating “Canal Zone,” a series of large-scale works exhibited at galleries in St. Barth’s and New York City in 2007 and 2008. Prince’s modifications to the black-and-white photos varied, but included enlarging the images, adding acrylic paint, pasting on new elements, tinting them, and using them in collages. According to the court, some of Prince’s works exhibited at the galleries almost entirely obscure Cariou’s original photographs. In others, Cariou’s original images are still readily apparent.
The court found that 25 of Prince’s works “manifest an entirely different aesthetic from Cariou’s photographs”:
Where Cariou’s serene and deliberately composed portraits and landscape photographs depict the natural beauty of Rastafarians and their surrounding environs, Prince’s crude and jarring works, on the other hand, are hectic and provocative. Cariou’s black-and-white photographs were printed in a 9 1/2″ x 12″ book. Prince has created collages on canvas that incorporate color, feature distorted human and other forms and settings, and measure between ten and nearly a hundred times the size of the photographs.
The court cautioned, however, that not all “cosmetic changes to the photographs would necessarily constitute fair use. A secondary work may modify the original without being transformative.” As an example, the court cited its 1998 ruling that a book providing synopses of Seinfeld television episodes infringed the original shows’ copyrights, since the book simply repackaged the episodes’ content in a new form.
The appellate court was uncertain whether Prince’s modifications were merely cosmetic for five of the thirty works. The court remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether those “relatively minimal alterations” were sufficiently transformative to be deemed fair uses of Cariou’s photographs.
Wednesday evening, US District Court Judge Harold Baer ruled that the mass book digitization program conducted by five major universities in conjunction with Google is a fair use under US copyright law. Under that program, Google has converted millions of copyright-protected library books into machine-readable files, duplicating and distributing the digitized books to university libraries. The universities pooled the digitized books into an online database organized by the University of Michigan known as HathiTrust.
We disagree with nearly every aspect of the court’s ruling. We’re especially disappointed that the court refused to address the universities’ “orphan works” program, which defendants have repeatedly promised to revive. A year ago, the University of Michigan and other defendants were poised to release their first wave of copyright-protected, digitized books to hundreds of thousands of students and faculty members in several states. The universities had deemed the authors of these books to be unfindable.
A group of large U.S. publishers agreed to drop their lawsuit against Google over its mass-digitization of millions of copyright-protected books. In a press release issued this morning, the Association of American Publishers and Google said that the terms of the settlement are confidential and won’t need court approval. The parties did lift the covers off the deal a bit, saying publishers “can choose to make available or choose to remove their books and journals digitized by Google.” The statement does not say whether Google is compensating publishers for its unauthorized uses of the books, nor does it address whether Google will continue scanning books without permission. The press release acknowledges that the settlement doesn’t affect the authors’ class-action lawsuit against Google.
“The publishers’ private settlement, whatever its terms, does not resolve the authors’ copyright infringement claims against Google,” Authors Guild executive director Paul Aiken said in a statement. “Google continues to profit from its use of millions of copyright-protected books without regard to authors’ rights, and our class-action lawsuit on behalf of U.S. authors continues.”
The press release follows.