As I was perusing the blog aggregators last night, I ran across a drawing on the VA GOP Caucus blog and recognized immediately the fine work of Craig Vitter, altered only to include the bubble speech box and still carrying the copyright notice of Vitter, making it appear as if Vitter himself had drawn it that way. Figuring that Craig perhaps had not seen it, I emailed him and let him know that his work was being used.
This morning, I see that Craig has posted that the use was unauthorized. I don’t know who is running that blog (which strangely carries a “paid for by” disclaimer, yet the blog is on the free Blogger service – wonder who/what they are paying?) but I think it speaks volumes that the official blog of the VA GOP Caucus would do such a thing.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Geez, I hope they’re not paying for the writing. There are plenty of Republican bloggers out there who are doing basically the same thing for free, and while I may not agree with everything the write, at least they write like they’ve finished high school. Look… I… can… overuse… the… elipsis… too…! I can even make it more……. forceful?……. by using the wrong number……………. of periods! Just to….. emphasize …….. how……… overdone it all is!
(…)!
Yeah, the writing is awful over there. This always seems to be the case with official party blogs, though.
I haven’t seen the post, but if the copyright was left intact, it was probably legal under fair use laws. Etiquette-wise, it may have been a little sketchy. I’ve used images from other websites, though. The way I handle it is that I keep any copyright disclaimers intact, and provide a link to the page – not just the website – where I can best determine it originated. I’m certain this practice is probably in violation of some obscure copyright law that I refuse to familiarize myself with. Nevertheless, I’ve never been asked to remove anything.
All in all, this seems a little nit-picky if you ask me. Hopefully, VJ, when the Dems do the same thing (they will, and probably have, at some point), I hope you’re just as fast on the trigger. 😉
*Disclaimer – for those who don’t know, I’m not a Republican, I’m a libertarian, and have no love at all for the R’s or the D’s. For that matter, the LP frustrates me at times.
Um Rick – the offending post is included in the picture above 🙂 Click to enlarge.
If a D blog did this, you bet I’d say something. The problem is that they modified the picture and made it appear that it had been done like that in the original. No, they didn’t provide any kind of link back to either the blog or the page where they got it.
As I understand Fair Use, this seems to be lawful. I will absolutely defer to any lawyer who says differently. Ethically, it’s a little gray. They should have documented the alteration. I would never have done it the way they did it. I’m scrupulous/obsessive with attribution, hat tips and all that, though. I go overboard with it, probably. I can play a little rough sometimes, when calling out another blogger, so if possible, I like to hit ’em with compliments when I can, and play the courtesy link game very liberally. 🙂
This, by the way, is why I don’t use copyright on my site at all. To erase all doubt, I use a Creative Commons license. Anyone can take anything I create, copy it, modify it, burn it, beat me over the head for it. Just gimme a link. The Open Source Principle.
Rick, I’m pretty sure the critical difference here is that the artist *does not* want people to sell, display or otherwise use his property without express permission, hence copywriting. And I’m not entirely sure you understand the issue since your second comment started with the words “I haven’t seen the post, but….”
I am likewise not a lawyer, but from what I know of the history and origins of fair use (which I learned in the course of having things copywrited before), it’s not actually codified clearly (because it emerged as a limitation to exclusivity as a result of court decisions, not as part of the law). What is now codified in ss107 to Title XVII is vague enough that the argument can go either way. Fair use is qualified by a court based on the criteria of (a) the purpose and character of the use, ie commercial vs. educational (b) the nature of the copywrited work, (c) amount and substance of the work used, and (d) impact of the use on the market for copywrited work.
The House GOP caucus blog would probably get away with (d) because this wouldn’t adversely affect the market. I would guess they’re screwed on (b) and (c) since the nature of the work is an artisitic creation copywrited by the artist, and the amount and substance is “all of it in it’s entirity, with manipulations made by the unauthorized user.” (a) is questionable. This isn’t commercial in nature, but on the other hand, it’s hardly educational. There’s no lesson to be gained that is enhanced and communicated through the use of the copywrited work.
You could find two lawyers to talk about this and get three different opinions from them, but I would wager that Craig would at least be able to make a strong case. The blog apparently agreed, since they replaced it with a picture that’s as hackneyed and juvenile as the “writing.”
Seems they took the image down.
Vivian, thank you so much for bringing the misappropriation to my attention. I have been mostly absent from blogging and reading blogs of late due to the fact that work and other activities have been keeping me otherwise occupied. Without your kind message the “theft” would have passed without the appropriate (I hope) response of shaming the VA GOP Caucus into removing the image.
While many would argue about the legality of the issue in question, there can be no argument that what was done was wrong on a number of levels. Writers, artists, thinkers, etc. have a vested interest in protecting their original materials if only to ensure that there ideas of not misappropriated or used in such a manner as to be wholly inconsistent with their personal ideals or detrimental to their best interests.
Okay, then. Now I’m curious. I’d love to know what everyone thinks of my own use/alteration of other people’s images. After Monday Morning Hillary told war stories (knowing that she has endured less hostile fire than that guy who sat in front of Pee-Wee Herman at the movie theater), I posted this. The image was a (really, really bad) mashup I whipped together from this one and this one. Opinions? Legality? Ethics?
On Craig’s blog, he links to this definition of fair use. I think yours would fall under the parody thing, but I’m no lawyer.
Um, well, if you want my opinion,
1. The likeness of Hillary Clinton is probably completely legal. If you took it from an AP photo, they’d be upset with you, but the amount and substance of the work used would make it hard to distinguish it as their work instead of simply being Hillary’s likeness. They own the photo, but they don’t own the likeness. If you got it from Hillary’s website, you’re absolutely allowed to use her work to mock her, this falls under the criticism exemption for fair use.
2. The amount and substance of the cartoon character used is probably pushing it. I don’t recognize the source material so I can’t really say, but while operating under the assumption that you’re using it because you consider it to be somehow “iconic,” I’m guessing someone else somewhere might recognize it as being someone else’s work and not your own. Also, while you can use a copywrited work to critize and comment upon it, that exception to copywrite law does not extend to third parties. Which is why the transformative alterations to Craig’s work would have been illegal–they weren’t criticizing or mocking Craig and his art, they were taking something that he had produced and were using it in its entirity to mock a third party. Mockery and satire of public officials is protected speech under the First Amendment; however, free speech is not a license to flaunt intellectual property and copywrite law.
3. It’s the friggin’ 21st Century, friend. Pee Wee Herman jokes are no longer funny.
addendum: Vivian makes a good point about parody that I hadn’t considered, but again, the reason I hadn’t considered it is that parody is generally accepted to be a spoof on the art being used (from an artistic standpoint). For instance, most of Mel Brooks’ movies are parodies of other works of art that make light of those works and their larger artistic genre–Space Balls, is clearly a comedic parody of Star Wars and the science fiction film genre in general. Legal definitions and colloquial definitions tend to differ, however, and I don’t know whether the law recognizes third parties in parody. My guess is that if the use of Craig’s work isn’t considered transformative parody (and it wouldn’t be), yours isn’t either.
Ultimately, I would only consider this unethical if you were intentially acting in bad faith or if the artist asked you to take it down but you didn’t. You’re not a lawyer, so if there wasn’t any legalese on the site you took the cartoon from, I’m going to assume you believed you were respecting the rights of the artist as far as you were legally obligated and would redress the injury as appropriate if it was brought to your attention that you were in error. I’m not going to make the same assumption for a blog that is paid for and authorized by a collection of 50-some odd lawyers who not only practice law but write law. We have to believe they knew better.
Last time, I promise, but this is HILARIOUS:
Check out who’s suddenly afraid that they’re leaving themselves open to possible legal action? The “paid for by” disclaimer Vivian Paige pointed out in her original post has been replaced by the following text: “This site is the unofficial blog of the Virginia House Republican Caucus.”
Of course, the sub-title for the blog still reads, “The official blog of the Virginia House of Delegates GOP Caucus.” What a bunch of winners. Too bad you can clearly see the paid for by disclaimer in the screen cap Vivian took of the stolen artwork….
Fair Use (a doctrine and not a law) should not apply to works if a substantial amount of the work is unchanged. The copyright notice does not relieve anyone from respecting and adhering to the copyright.
Lloyd Snook had a good definition the other day too, when I questioned an entire article being published by a visitor to his blog.
Democratic Central
And Lloyd is a lawyer.