一位自稱是"藝術家"的Richard Prince（作品可參考：http://www.richardprince.com/，風評不一）涉入一個著作權官司，官司關於一系列「Canal Zone」系列的畫，其中引用法國攝影師Patrick Carious的2008年攝影著作，將其改變（美術拼貼）為自己的「作品」，於是作者Patrick Carious於2009年提出著作權侵權告訴，包括對相關畫廊與出版商提告，地方法院在2011年3月作出判決，要求相關被告人應將剩餘侵權著作銷毀。
不過，案件經上訴後，上訴法院認為除了其中五幅作品外，其餘應該重新評估「合理使用（fair use）」。
上訴法院法官B.D. Parker認為地方法院對於被告Patrick Carious是否「合理使用」Patrick Carious的作品使用錯誤的判斷標準，認為其中除了有五幅作品外，其餘為合理使用，法院意見包括，藝術品不用作出先前聲明以求合理使用，而應考量著作權的公共用途，我們所有人都可以從新的作品找出價值。
"The court decided that artwork does not need to comment on previous work to qualify as fair use, and that Prince's testimony is not the dispositive question in determining whether a work is transformative. Rather the issue is how the work may reasonably be perceived. This is the right standard because it takes into account the underlying public purpose of copyright law, which should not be beholden to statements of individual intent but instead consider the value that all of us gain from the creation of new work."
如以下截圖，Patrick Carious就是一種美術拼貼，用一些幾何圖拼貼到人家的攝影作品上，特別是人物的眼睛、嘴巴上，這樣算藝術，大約就是這樣的拼貼表示出作者藉此表達真實世界（因此自然也要取自真實世界的影像），也賣了1千萬美元。算「合理使用」，就是因為法院認為，這個藝術品的用途不會影響（或取代）原始攝影作品的用途。
Patrick Carious對於Canal Zone相關作品新聞稿：
另一作品：
最高法院拒絕審理，本案最後和解（https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cariou_v._Prince）：
"The Second Circuit held in 2013 that Prince's appropriation art could constitute fair use, and that a number of his works were transformative fair uses of Cariou's photographs. The Court remanded to the District Court for reconsideration of 5 of Prince's works, the Supreme Court denied cert., and the case settled in 2014."
法條參考：
17 U.S.C. § 107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
my two cents:
現在到處都有攝影作品，借用、使用他人作品常也無法避免，要伸張自己的著作權，顯然也涉及「拼貼」作者的意象，是否有漂竊原作者的意圖等。這樣看來，不是很容易取得勝訴。
以上案例的被告在很多事情上都有些爭議，顯然這是他當紅的理由之一，只要有新聞，不惜侵權。當然，關於「合理使用」著作版權的判斷仍有爭議。
資料來源：
沒有留言:
張貼留言