The platonic ideal of fair use: critical remix of municipal video

City of Inglewood v. Teixeira, No. 15-cv-01815 (C.D. Cal.
Aug. 20, 2015)
 
Teixeira lives in Inglewood, California, and posts videos on
YouTube as “Dehol Trouth.”  The City
argued that he infringed the City’s copyright in recordings of its city
council’s meetings, and here it loses comprehensively.  One hopes a motion for the defendant’s attorneys’ fees is forthcoming.
 
First, California law barred the City from claiming
copyright in its video. “California law establishes a strong presumption in
favor of public access to public materials and places significant limits on how
public entities may restrict access to such materials.”  In the absence of an affirmative grant of
authority to claim copyright, a California public entity may not do so.  There was no such grant here.  The City tried to argue that the Supremacy
Clause overrode California law and allowed it to claim copyright, but the
Supremecy Clause doesn’t forbid a state from choosing whether or not it wants
copyright protection for its entities’ works, and probably the Copyright Act
couldn’t require it to allow copyright claims. 
The California legislature has expressly granted its entities to assert copyright
protection for software, Cal. Gov. Code § 6254.9 (and educational material and
materials produced by the Department of Toxic Substances Control, go figure),
but not video, as a California appellate case cited favorably by the California
Supreme Court made clear.
 
Regardless, Teixeira’s videos were fair use as a matter of
law, on the pleadings.  Even assuming, as
alleged and contrary to Teixeira’s representations, that the videos were used
for commercial purposes, every factor heavily favored fair use.  Teixeira used carefully chosen portions of
the larger works to comment on and criticize the City Council’s acts and
members.

The videos “consist of his narrating his criticism of Mayor Butts over slides
or other text, documents – such as a report by the Inglewood city clerk – and
video clips, some of which are taken from the City Council Videos over which
the City claims a copyright interest.” 
The shortest was 3 minutes and 43 seconds and the longest was 15 minutes,
and the clips used were considerably shorter. 
“Some of the clips are used unadorned but they are most often frequently
overlaid with Teixeira’s oral and written commentary and criticism, as well as
music. Even when unadorned, they form only part of longer videos, with the
clips contrasted with documents, sound recordings, and other video clips,
accompanied with Teixeira’s written and oral commentary.”  This was highly transformative.  Not only did they offer criticism and
commentary, but fair use “generally provides a greater scope of protection when
the works involve[d] address matters of public concern.”
 
Los Angeles Times v.
Free Republic
, CV–98–07840– MMM, 2000 WL 565200 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2000),
was inapposite, because that case found that “limited commentary added to
verbatim copies was not sufficient” to justify the amount of copying: full,
verbatim copies.  Teixeira’s use was
wholly different sort: his clips were “carefully chosen and heavily edited,”
juxtoposed with other materials, and surrounded by Teixeira’s commentary. “No
person wishing to find out what occurred during a lengthy City Council meeting
would be satisfied with viewing any of the Teixeira Videos.”  (Side note on “carefully chosen”: on a motion
to dismiss, presumably this means “as a matter of law, the clips directly
relate to the criticism in the rest of the videos.”)  Even if they were commercial, the first
factor tilted heavily in favor of fair use.
 
Nature of the work: Copyrightable, but barely creative.  Favored fair use.
 
Amount used: Small portions. 
The longer videos, 15 minutes long, contained clips from an over
four-hour-long video; the clips were all under a minute long and most under 15
seconds.  The shortest Teixeira video was
3:43 and was “almost wholly comprised of a single clip from the City Council
meeting,” which was the longest clip used in any of the accused videos.  Throughout, the vide included music added by
Teixeira, “but more importantly, his commentary runs along the bottom of the
screen as [Mayor Butts talks,” ridiculing his physical and verbal tics and
specifically identifying points at which Butts is allegedly lying. The source
video was over three hours.
 
The City argued that Teixeira failed to show that his
copying was “essential” to his purpose, and that each topic addressed at the
meetings was “an independent and entire work.” No: review of the videos made it
clear that Teixeira copied only the parts of the City Council videos that served
his purpose of commenting on them, or criticizing particular statements by
Butts. The City’s “exceptionally narrow view of an ‘entire’ work is without
merit and contrary to the purpose of the fair use doctrine, which permits the
use of reasonable quantities of a work for the purpose of criticism and
comment.”  This factor strongly favored
fair use.
 
Market effect: there is no market for the City Council
videos, and the accused videos were no substitute.  The City argued that Teixeira’s copying
denied it  the opportunity to “recoup its
expenses” and “deprives [the City] of potential revenue.”  But California law prevents public agencies from
charging the public anything more than the “direct costs of duplication” when
providing public records, thus prohibiting the City from recouping its cost of
production.  There could be no commercial
market for the videos.  This factor
strongly favored fair use.
 
Thus, fair use as a matter of law. The City accused Teixeira
of wanting “to criticize the City without doing his own work” by “posting
substantially all of the full [City Council Videos] with [his] comments posted
on top of them.” “Even if the City’s characterization of the Teixeira Videos
were accurate, fair use would allow such use for the purpose of commentary.”

from Blogger http://ift.tt/1U9m8kO

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s