I am trying to figure out the copyright angle on all this.
The Danish paper asked a bunch of artists for some cartoons. The newspaper got permission to publish them and did. (I bet you no money changed hands, if that is important.) The paper soon came to the conclusion they screwed up. They apologized.
But then, other newspapers republished the cartoons. Did they, should they, get permission from either the artists or the original newspaper?
If they republished without permission would the copyright holder be able to enforce his rights? Would the copyright holder most likely be the artist or the Danish newspaper?
Would the fact the cartoons are newsworthy impact on all this?
From what I read in the news (which also seems to be borne out by the Wikipedia articleJyllands-Posten commissioned the caricatures (asking for submissions from about forty caricaturists, receiving pictures from twelve of them).
There is no mention that any of the caricatures were published previously (in fact the Farsi text translating as “The editorial team of Jyllands-Posten is a bunch of reactionary provocateurs” in one of the caricatures would seem to indicate that it was drawn specifically for the occasion ), so I would assume that Jyllands-Posten bought the publishing rights to the pictures, in which case other newspapers would need to contact only Jyllands-Posten about republishing rights. Newspapers reprint each other’s editorial cartoons all the time so that would be a fairly routine process.
They need to get permission from whoever holds the copyright.
However, newspapers often belong to things like the Associated Press (in the US), which means their content can be picked up and used elsewhere (look at a place like Yahoo News, for instance, which reprints AP stories. They don’t have to ask for each story, but rather pay a fee to join AP) by members of the news consortium. The rights granted by the artist in any countract would undoubtedly be written to give the newspaper the right to syndicate the drawings.
If the drawings were republished without permission, then the artist could certainly sue, but I’m sure the right to syndicate the drawings was granted to the first newspaper as part of their contract.
Depends on how the rights are worded. Usually, the newspaper gets license to do whatever it wants with the articles/art submitted. In that case, the newspaper would probably have the right to withdraw the items from syndication. The syndicate also could stop circulating the drawings if it desires.
Neither (nor could the artist) sue for infringement by anyone who subscribes to the service before the withdrawal. The newspaper has given the syndicate the right to use the image, and the syndicate has given its member newspapers the right, so they had permission to publish it.
If it was published by a newspaper or other place that does not subscribe to the syndicate, then it would be a copyright infringement and someone (most likely the syndicate, which would have more money and lawyers) could sue for damages.
The artist can contact the newspaper and ask it to withdraw the item, but I doubt they’d have any obligation.
IANAL, but given the turmoil that has surrounded the cartoons I bet just about any paper could publish them without permission by claiming a Fair Use defense. Essentially, once something becomes “news” and is reported as such, freedom of the press rights superceed copyright concerns. I am speaking, of course, for USA practice.
That’s an interesting point. I’d tend to say that fair use would not apply, any more than it would apply to any AP photo. The news isn’t copyrightable, but the article about it is.
Let’s check the four requirements;
If used in a newspaper, that commercial use. If used in a blog, it’s a gray area.
Not sure how this applies, one way or another.
Your copying the entire work (the image). A black mark for fair use.
If a newspaper uses the image for free, it reduces the value of the work (by the cost it would have had to pay for reprinting, if nothing else). Again, a blog or web page might not have as big a problem. Also, in this case, the market for this is restricted because of people fearing the repercussions.
RChuck, I would contend that your AP photo analogy does not strictly apply. The news is about the cartoons themselves, not, the subject of the cartoons.
If, say, in a news story about Pres. Bush having an affair, the NY Times ran an AP photo of the president naked with his mistress without permission, the AP (or the shooter) could cry copyright infringement. But if the Times ran the photo in a story claiming that said photo was doctored by the president’s enemies, I think they could easily claim fair use.
The cartoons are more akin to the second example than the first.
The Mercury News did not republish the cartoon, but published a photograph of a German paper which did republish the cartoon open to the page with the cartoon. Would this be a violation of copyright, or be fair use, since it is a newsworthy photo?
I have no idea , but from your description, I think what the Mercury News did is brilliant. Contextualizing the cartoons like that really communicates the message that the MN is not republishing them as cartoons or identifying itself in any way with the content of the drawings, but that it does consider them newsworthy and recognizes the importance to its readers of seeing them firsthand.
Why the difference? We have a local paper here that’s free–entirely paid for by advertising. That’s precisely the same financial model as many blogs. If one is commercial use, so is the other.
), so I would assume that Jyllands-Posten bought the publishing rights to the pictures, in which case other newspapers would need to contact only Jyllands-Posten about republishing rights. Newspapers reprint each other’s editorial cartoons all the time so that would be a fairly routine process.