L’intelligenza artificiale di Facebook viola il diritto di elaborazione delle opere letterarie utilizzate?

Large Language Model Meta AI (LLaMA)  (v.ne la descrizione nel sito di Meta) non viola il diritto di elaborazione sulle opere letterarie usate per creare tali modelli, dice il Trib. del distretto nord della Calofiornia Case No. 23-cv-03417-VC, 20 novembre 2023 , Kadrey v. Meta.

Nè nella costituzione dei modelli medesimi nè nell’output genrato dal loro uso:

<<1. The plaintiffs allege that the “LLaMA language models are themselves infringing
derivative works” because the “models cannot function without the expressive information
extracted” from the plaintiffs’ books. This is nonsensical. A derivative work is “a work based
upon one or more preexisting works” in any “form in which a work may be recast, transformed,
or adapted.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. There is no way to understand the LLaMA models themselves as a
recasting or adaptation of any of the plaintiffs’ books.

[più che altro non c’è prova: non si può dire che sia impossibile in astratto]
2. Another theory is that “every output of the LLaMA language models is an infringing
derivative work,” and that because third-party users initiate queries of LLaMA, “every output
from the LLaMA language models constitutes an act of vicarious copyright infringement.” But
the complaint offers no allegation of the contents of any output, let alone of one that could be  understood as recasting, transforming, or adapting the plaintiffs’ books. Without any plausible
allegation of an infringing output, there can be no vicarious infringement. See Perfect 10, Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1169 (9th Cir. 2007).
The plaintiffs are wrong to say that, because their books were duplicated in full as part of
the LLaMA training process, they do not need to allege any similarity between LLaMA outputs
and their books to maintain a claim based on derivative infringement. To prevail on a theory that
LLaMA’s outputs constitute derivative infringement, the plaintiffs would indeed need to allege
and ultimately prove that the outputs “incorporate in some form a portion of” the plaintiffs’
books. Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1357 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Andersen v.
Stability AI Ltd., No. 23-CV-00201-WHO, 2023 WL 7132064, at *7-8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2023)
(“[T]he alleged infringer’s derivative work must still bear some similarity to the original work or
contain the protected elements of the original work.”); 2 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer,
Nimmer on Copyright § 8.09 (Matthew Bender Rev. Ed. 2023) (“Unless enough of the pre-
existing work is contained in the later work to constitute the latter an infringement of the former,
the latter, by definition, is not a derivative work.”); 1 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer,
Nimmer on Copyright § 3.01 (Matthew Bender Rev. Ed. 2023) (“A work is not derivative unless
it has substantially copied from a prior work.” (emphasis omitted)). The plaintiffs cite Range
Road Music, Inc. v. East Coast Foods, Inc., 668 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2012), but that case is not
applicable here. In Range Road, the infringement was the public performance of copyrighted
songs at a bar. Id. at 1151-52. The plaintiffs presented evidence (namely, the testimony of
someone they sent to the bar) that the songs performed were, in fact, the protected songs. Id. at
1151-53. The defendants presented no evidence of their own that the protected songs were not
performed. Nor did they present evidence that the performed songs were different in any
meaningful way from the protected songs. Id. at 1154. The Ninth Circuit held that, under these
circumstances, summary judgment for the plaintiffs was appropriate. And the Court rejected the
defendants’ contention that the plaintiffs, under these circumstances, were also required to
present evidence that the performed songs were “substantially similar” to the protected songs.
That contention made no sense, because the plaintiffs had already offered unrebutted evidence
that the songs performed at the bar were the protected songs. Id. at 1154. Of course, if the
defendants had presented evidence at summary judgment that the songs performed at the bar
were meaningfully different from the protected songs, then there would have been a dispute over
whether the performances were infringing, and the case would have needed to go to trial. At that
trial, the plaintiffs would have needed to prove that the performed songs (or portions of the
performed songs) were “substantially similar” to the protected songs. That’s the same thing the
plaintiffs would need to do here with respect to the content of LLaMA’s outputs. To the extent
that they are not contending LLaMa spits out actual copies of their protected works, they would
need to prove that the outputs (or portions of the outputs) are similar enough to the plaintiffs’
books to be infringing derivative works. And because the plaintiffs would ultimately need to
prove this, they must adequately allege it at the pleading stage>>

[anche qui manca la prova]

Motivazione un pò striminzita, per vero.

(notizia e link dal blog di Eric Goldman)

Andy Wharol e la sua elaborazione della fotografia di Prince scattata da Lynn Goldsmith: per la decisione della Corte Suprema non c’è fair use

Supreme Court US n. 21-869 del 18 maggio 2023, ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR THE VISUAL ARTS, INC. v. GOLDSMITH ET AL.  decide l’oggetto.

Decide uno dei temi più importanti del diritto di autore, che assai spesso riguarda opere elaboranti opere precedenti.

Qui riporto il sillabo e per esteso: in sostanza l’esame della SC si appunta solo sul primo elemento dei quattro da conteggiare per decidere sul fair use (In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include : (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; ), 17 US code § 107.

<< The “purpose and character” of AWF’s use of Goldsmith’s photograph in commercially licensing Orange Prince to Condé Nast does not favor AWF’s fair use defense to copyright infringement. Pp. 12–38.
AWF contends that the Prince Series works are “transformative,”and that the first fair use factor thus weighs in AWF’s favor, because the works convey a different meaning or message than the photograph. But the first fair use factor instead focuses on whether an allegedlyinfringing use has a further purpose or different character, which is amatter of degree, and the degree of difference must be weighed againstother considerations, like commercialism. Although new expression, meaning, or message may be relevant to whether a copying use has asufficiently distinct purpose or character, it is not, without more, dis-positive of the first factor. Here, the specific use of Goldsmith’s photograph alleged to infringe her copyright is AWF’s licensing of OrangePrince to Condé Nast. As portraits of Prince used to depict Prince inmagazine stories about Prince, the original photograph and AWF’s copying use of it share substantially the same purpose. Moreover, AWF’s use is of a commercial nature. Even though Orange Prince adds new expression to Goldsmith’s photograph, in the context of the challenged use, the first fair use factor still favors Goldsmith. Pp. 12–27.
The Copyright Act encourages creativity by granting to the creator of an original work a bundle of rights that includes the rights toreproduce the copyrighted work and to prepare derivative works. 17
S. C. §106. Copyright, however, balances the benefits of incentives to create against the costs of restrictions on copying. This balancingact is reflected in the common-law doctrine of fair use, codified in §107,which provides: “[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work, . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching . . . , scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” To determine whether a particular use is “fair,” the statute enumerates four factors to be considered. The factors “set forth general principles, the application of which requires judicial balancing, depending upon relevant circumstances.” Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U. S. ___, ___.
The first fair use factor, “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes,” §107(1), considers the reasons for, and nature of, the copier’s use of an original work. The central question it asks is whether the use “merely supersedes the objects of the original creation . . . (supplanting the original), or instead adds something new, with afurther purpose or different character.” Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U. S. 569, 579 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). As most copying has some further purpose and many secondary works add something new, the first factor asks “whether and to what extent” the use at issue has a purpose or character different from the original. Ibid. (emphasis added). The larger the difference, the morelikely the first factor weighs in favor of fair use. A use that has a further purpose or different character is said to be “transformative,” but that too is a matter of degree. Ibid. To preserve the copyright owner’s right to prepare derivative works, defined in §101 of the Copyright Act to include “any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed,or adapted,” the degree of transformation required to make “transformative” use of an original work must go beyond that required to qualify as a derivative.
The Court’s decision in Campbell is instructive. In holding that parody may be fair use, the Court explained that “parody has an obvious claim to transformative value” because “it can provide social benefit, by shedding light on an earlier work, and, in the process, creating a new one.” 510 U. S., at 579. The use at issue was 2 Live Crew’s copying of Roy Orbison’s song, “Oh, Pretty Woman,” to create a rap derivative, “Pretty Woman.” 2 Live Crew transformed Orbison’s song by adding new lyrics and musical elements, such that “Pretty Woman” had adifferent message and aesthetic than “Oh, Pretty Woman.” But that did not end the Court’s analysis of the first fair use factor. The Court found it necessary to determine whether 2 Live Crew’s transformationrose to the level of parody, a distinct purpose of commenting on theoriginal or criticizing it. Further distinguishing between parody and satire, the Court explained that “[p]arody needs to mimic an originalto make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim’s (or collective victims’) imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing.” Id., at 580–581. More generally, when “commentary has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition, . . . the claim to fairness in borrowing from another’s work diminishes accordingly (if it does not vanish), and other factors, like the extent of its commerciality, loom larger.” Id., at 580.
Campbell illustrates two important points. First, the fact that a use is commercial as opposed to nonprofit is an additional element of the first fair use factor. The commercial nature of a use is relevant, but not dispositive. It is to be weighed against the degree to which the use has a further purpose or different character. Second, the first factor relates to the justification for the use. In a broad sense, a use that has a distinct purpose is justified because it furthers the goal of copyright,namely, to promote the progress of science and the arts, without diminishing the incentive to create. In a narrower sense, a use may be justified because copying is reasonably necessary to achieve the user’s new purpose. Parody, for example, “needs to mimic an original to make its point.” Id., at 580–581. Similarly, other commentary or criticism that targets an original work may have compelling reason to “conjure up” the original by borrowing from it. Id., at 588. An independent justification like this is particularly relevant to assessing fairuse where an original work and copying use share the same or highly similar purposes, or where wide dissemination of a secondary work would otherwise run the risk of substitution for the original or licensedderivatives of it. See, e.g., Google, 593 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26).
In sum, if an original work and secondary use share the same orhighly similar purposes, and the secondary use is commercial, the first fair use factor is likely to weigh against fair use, absent some other justification for copying. Pp. 13–20.
The fair use provision, and the first factor in particular, requires an analysis of the specific “use” of a copyrighted work that is alleged to be “an infringement.” §107. The same copying may be fairwhen used for one purpose but not another. See Campbell, 510 U. S., at 585. Here, Goldsmith’s copyrighted photograph has been used in multiple ways. The Court limits its analysis to the specific use allegedto be infringing in this case—AWF’s commercial licensing of Orange Prince to Condé Nast—and expresses no opinion as to the creation, display, or sale of the original Prince Series works. In the context of Condé Nast’s special edition magazine commemorating Prince, the purpose of the Orange Prince image is substantially the same as thatof Goldsmith’s original photograph. Both are portraits of Prince used in magazines to illustrate stories about Prince. The use also is of a commercial nature. Taken together, these two elements counsel against fair use here. Although a use’s transformativeness may outweigh its commercial character, in this case both point in the same direction. That does not mean that all of Warhol’s derivative works, nor all uses of them, give rise to the same fair use analysis. Pp. 20–27.
AWF contends that the purpose and character of its use of Goldsmith’s photograph weighs in favor of fair use because Warhol’s silkscreen image of the photograph has a different meaning or message. By adding new expression to the photograph, AWF says, Warhol madetransformative use of it. Campbell did describe a transformative use as one that “alter[s] the first [work] with new expression, meaning, or message.” 510 U. S., at 579. But Campbell cannot be read to mean that §107(1) weighs in favor of any use that adds new expression, meaning, or message. Otherwise, “transformative use” would swallow the copyright owner’s exclusive right to prepare derivative works, asmany derivative works that “recast, transfor[m] or adap[t]” the original, §101, add new expression of some kind. The meaning of a secondary work, as reasonably can be perceived, should be considered to the extent necessary to determine whether the purpose of the use is distinct from the original. For example, the Court in Campbell considered the messages of 2 Live Crew’s song to determine whether the song hada parodic purpose. But fair use is an objective inquiry into what a user does with an original work, not an inquiry into the subjective intent of the user, or into the meaning or impression that an art critic or judge draws from a work.
Even granting the District Court’s conclusion that Orange Prince reasonably can be perceived to portray Prince as iconic, whereas Goldsmith’s portrayal is photorealistic, that difference must be evaluatedin the context of the specific use at issue. The purpose of AWF’s recent commercial licensing of Orange Prince was to illustrate a magazine about Prince with a portrait of Prince. Although the purpose could bemore specifically described as illustrating a magazine about Prince with a portrait of Prince, one that portrays Prince somewhat differently from Goldsmith’s photograph (yet has no critical bearing on her photograph), that degree of difference is not enough for the first factor to favor AWF, given the specific context and commercial nature of the use. To hold otherwise might authorize a range of commercial copying of photographs to be used for purposes that are substantially the sameas those of the originals.
AWF asserts another related purpose of Orange Prince, which is tocomment on the “dehumanizing nature” and “effects” of celebrity. No doubt, many of Warhol’s works, and particularly his uses of repeated images, can be perceived as depicting celebrities as commodities. But even if such commentary is perceptible on the cover of Condé Nast’s tribute to “Prince Rogers Nelson, 1958–2016,” on the occasion of the man’s death, the asserted commentary is at Campbell’s lowest ebb: It “has no critical bearing on” Goldsmith’s photograph, thus the commentary’s “claim to fairness in borrowing from” her work “diminishes accordingly (if it does not vanish).” Campbell, 510 U. S., at 580. The commercial nature of the use, on the other hand, “loom[s] larger.” Ibid. Like satire that does not target an original work, AWF’s asserted commentary “can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification forthe very act of borrowing.” Id., at 581. Moreover, because AWF’s copying of Goldsmith’s photograph was for a commercial use so similar to the photograph’s typical use, a particularly compelling justification is needed. Copying the photograph because doing so was merely helpfulto convey a new meaning or message is not justification enough. Pp.28–37.
(c) Goldsmith’s original works, like those of other photographers, areentitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists. Such protection includes the right to prepare derivative works that transform the original. The use of a copyrighted work may nevertheless be fair if, among other things, the use has a purpose and character that is sufficiently distinct from the original. In this case, however, Goldsmith’s photograph of Prince, and AWF’s copying use of the photograph in an image licensed to a special edition magazine devoted to Prince, share substantially the same commercial purpose. AWF has offered no other persuasive justification for its unauthorized use of thephotograph. While the Court has cautioned that the four statutory fairuse factors may not “be treated in isolation, one from another,” but instead all must be “weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright,” Campbell, 510 U. S., at 578, here AWF challenges only the Court of Appeals’ determinations on the first fair use factor, and theCourt agrees the first factor favors Goldsmith. P. 38 >>

Per quanto elevata la creatività di Wharol, non si può negare che egli si sia appoggiato a quella della fotografa.

Da noi lo sfruttamento dell’opera elaborata, pe quanto creativa questa sia,  sempre richiede il consenso del titolare dell’opera base (a meno che il legame tra le due sia evanescente …).

Decisione a maggioranza, con opinione dissenziente di Kagan cui si è unito Roberts. Dissenso assai articolato, basato soprattutto sul ravvisare uso tranformative e sul ridurre l’importanza dello sfruttamento economico da parte di Wharol. Riporto solo questo :

<<Now recall all the ways Warhol, in making a Prince portrait from the Goldsmith photo, “add[ed] something new, with a further purpose or different character”—all the wayshe “alter[ed] the [original work’s] expression, meaning, [and] message.” Ibid. The differences in form and appearance, relating to “composition, presentation, color palette, and media.” 1 App. 227; see supra, at 7–10. The differences in meaning that arose from replacing a realistic—and indeed humanistic—depiction of the performer with an unnatural, disembodied, masklike one. See ibid. The conveyance of new messages about celebrity culture and itspersonal and societal impacts. See ibid. The presence of, in a word, “transformation”—the kind of creative building that copyright exists to encourage. Warhol’s use, to be sure, had a commercial aspect. Like most artists, Warhol did not want to hide his works in a garret; he wanted to sell them.But as Campbell and Google both demonstrate (and as further discussed below), that fact is nothing near the showstopper the majority claims. Remember, the more trans-formative the work, the less commercialism matters. See Campbell, 510 U. S., at 579; supra, at 14; ante, at 18 (acknowledging the point, even while refusing to give it any meaning). The dazzling creativity evident in the Prince portrait might not get Warhol all the way home in the fair-use inquiry; there remain other factors to be considered and possibly weighed against the first one. See supra, at 2, 10,
14. But the “purpose and character of [Warhol’s] use” of the copyrighted work—what he did to the Goldsmith photo, in service of what objects—counts powerfully in his favor. He started with an old photo, but he created a new new thing>>.

Diritto d’autore violato da tatuaggio?

Il Centr. Dist. della California, 31.05.2022, CV 21-1102 DSF (MRWx) , Sedlick v. Von Drachenberg e altri, affronta la proteggibilità di una fotografia nei confronti di una sua riproduzione su corpo umano tramite tatuaggio.

Si tratta di un’iconica, come si usa dire, rappresentazione di Miles Davis operata da un -pare- assai noto fotografo, tal Jeffrey Sedlik, il quale si accorge dai social del tatuaggio (sub C, p. 5)

I convenuti sono la tattoist e le due aziende coinvolte nell’attività (non il cliente che ricevette il tatuggio).

La corte non decide in via sommaria ma rinvia alla giuria.

Non sono in contestazione la proteggibilità nè il copiaggio. Solo che i convenuti dicono che la loro ripresa ha riguardato  elementi non proteggibili della fotografia.

La Corte affronta la questione adoperando i soliti due test (estrinseco e intrinseco, distinzione di assai dubbia esattezza logico-giuridica)

Circa l’estrinseco, ritiene che <there is a triable issue of substantial similarity under the extrinsic test>, p. 16.
Analoga, ma opposta, conclusione per il test intrinseco: <The Court finds a reasonable juror applying the intrinsic test could conclude that the works are not substantially similar in total concept and feel. See Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841, 845 (9th Cir. 2004), as amended on denial of reh’g (Aug. 24, 2004) (“subjective
question [of] whether works are intrinsically similar must be left to the jury”). Because there are triable issues as to substantial similarity under both the extrinsic and intrinsic tests, the Court DENIES Sedlik’s motion as to copyright infringement>, ivi
Ancora, la corte ritiene che ci fossero ampi margini di espressività, per cui cocnede la broad proteciuon, p.14.

le due riproduzioni sono queste:

originale foto, sopra; tatuaggio, sotto

Incerta la corte anche per l’eccezione di fair use e in particolare per i suoi quattro fattoro: alcuni li ritiene a favore di attore o convenuto , altri invece allo stato non decidibili e meritevoli di esame da parte della giuria sub 2, p. 17 ss

Nessun cenno al peculiare supporto di esecuzione della riproduzione (corpo umano) nè a problemi di attuazione di eventuali ordini di rimozione o distruzione (si dice che i tatuaggi siano  difficilmente cancellabili)

(notizia , link alla sentenza e link alle due immagini dal blog del prof. Eric Goldman)

Sul doppiaggio illecito dei dialoghi di un film (con negazione dell’usucapibilità del diritto nel copyright)

La lite decisa da Trib. Milano 30.04.2020, rel. Marangoni, sent. 2658/2020, RG 70751/2015, Dynit srl c. Yamato srl – Koch Media srl, concerne l’illecito doppiaggio in italiano di dieci film giapponesi per bambini.

Punti salienti del decisum:

. distinzione tra il diritto di proiettare il film e quello sui relativi dialoghi tradotti (e sul  doppiaggio in genere);

– applicazione dell’rt. 1398 cc (falsus procurator) all’atto dispositivo compiuto da soggetto privo dei poteri di impegnare la società titolare di diritto;

  • impssibilità di acquisto per usucapione: <<Del resto, Yamato, terza acquirente dall’originario contraente del negozio inefficace, non potrebbe neppure eccepire l’acquisto a titolo originario in virtu del possesso, essendo inapplciabile ai diritti di autore  la regola del possesso vale titolo.    Tale interpretazione di segno negativo, già ribadita da questo e da altri Uffici di merito (cfr. Corte d’Appello di Torino, sentenza n. 1386 del 14 luglio 2015) nonché dalla Corte di legittimità (cfr. Cass. n. 5359 del 5.3.2010), trova supporto nella considerazione che manca qui “ogni potere sulla cosa, la quale s’identifica nello stesso contesto normativo in una parte, semplice o composta, ma comunque separata e individuale, della realtà materiale, deve negarsi il rilievo del possesso di cui all’art.1140, con esclusione dell’applicabilità dell’usucapione” (cfr. Cass. cit.).

La parte che pretende di vantare diritti autorali non originali per effetto dell’autonoma creazione deve dunque provare lo specifico fatto traslativo. Invero, anche il possesso del “corpus mechanicum” non può legittimare l’acquisto della proprietà autorale -in questo caso delle tracce del doppiaggio- a titolo originario, trattandosi di una mera disponibilità del bene, non accompagnata dall’unicità del godimento medesimo. Il possesso del corpus mechanicum non consente, infatti, a differenza dei beni materiali, di assicurare l’unicità del godimento del bene e la possibilità di possesso esclusivo del bene stesso, presupposto essenziale per poter ragionare di un acquisto a titolo originario della proprietà di un bene>>

  • – elemento soggettivo per il risarcimento del danno: il collegio scrive di <presunzione di colpa> che però è assente dal dettato della legge di autore: <<Quanto al profilo soggettivo della condotta, la presunzione di colpa che assiste l’illecito qui indagato non è stata qui superata, tenuto conto, in generale, della peculiare diligenza richiesta all’operatore di mercato nella collocazione di beni o servizi sul mercato alla salvaguardia di prerogative privatistiche di altri concorrenti.>>.          Probabilmente intendeva <presunzione di negligenza> per la professionalità del convenuto: ma l’affermazione sarebbe di dubbia esattezza, in mancanza di fondamento legislativo. Più semplicemente ricorreva negligenza, senza necessità di ravvisare presunzioni.
  • quantificazione del danno: <<Occorre tenere in conto che si tratta di nove riproduzioni cinematografiche rispetto alle quali il doppiaggio costituisce una sola frazione dei diritti autorali cumulati nel singolo film e che le opere litigiose erano già state riproposte sul mercato nazionale dalla stessa attrice.
    Il Collegio ritiene dunque congruo -pur tenendo conto del criterio  correttivo al rialzo della somma che sarebbe stata pattuita in sede di libera contrattazione anche al fine disincentivante della violazione- riconoscere a titolo risarcitorio complessivo l’importo complessivo di 40.000,00 quale somma complessiva già liquidata in moneta attuale, sulla quale decorrono gli interessi legali dalla pronuncia al saldo
    >.    Errato è invocare il <fine disincentivante>, essendo il risarcimemnto (compansazione) altro dalla sanzione (misura ultracompensativa).

Diritto di sincronizzazione musicale e risarcimento del danno tramite prezzo del consenso

Trib. Milano di circa un anno fa decide una domanda di danno etc. per violazione dei diritto di autore tramite una sincronizzazione abusiva di opera musicale in spot pubblicitario (Trib. Milano 02.11.2020 n. 6832/2020, RG 5498472016, Accordo ediz. musicali c. Gestipharm +1, rel. Zana) .

Sulla sincronizzazione (a cavallo di riproduzione ed elaborazione dell’opera):

<<Attesa  la  sua  natura  esclusiva,  assoluta  ed  opponibile  erga  omnes, l’opera musicale non può essere legittimamente riprodotta, utilizzata e sincronizzata senza il consenso del titolare dei relativi diritti. La mancata autorizzazione comporta la violazione dei diritti esclusivi.

In particolare, il diritto di sincronizzazione consiste nel diritto di abbinare o di associare opere musicali o  fonogrammi  con  opere  audiovisive  o  con  altro  tipo  di  opere,  e  si  attua  con  la  loro  fissazione  in sincrono con una sequenza di immagini.

La sincronizzazione è dunque un atto complesso che permette il riadattamento dell’opera musicale (Cass. sez.1, 12.12.2017, n.29811) .

Creando un prodotto nuovo e diverso, le attività di cui la sincronizzazione necessita sono riconducibili a diritti esclusivamente riservati all’autore/editore, quali:  a) la fissazione dell’opera su un supporto e/o mezzo audiovisivo, idoneo a riprodurre suoni o immagini; b) la riproduzione dell’opera;  c)  l’inserimento  dell’opera  in  un  prodotto  nuovo,  che  necessariamente  presuppone  la  sua manipolazione ed il suo adattamento.

Quanto  alla  specifica  sincronizzazione  dei  singoli  fonogrammi,  si  rende  necessario  altresì  il  consenso del produttore fonografico>>

Quanto alla deterimnazine del danno patrimoniale (chiesto in euro 60.000,00):

<<Ritiene  l’Ufficio,  ai  fini  della  cristallizzazione  del  danno,  di  ricorrere  al  criterio  necessariamente equitativo ex art. 1226 c.c. e di utilizzare, quale parametro di valutazione, il prezzo del consenso, ossia l’importo che la titolare  avrebbe  verosimilmente  richiesto  per  consentire  alla  convenuta  di  utilizzare l’opera  musicale  nelle  proprie  pubblicità  commerciali.    Il  prezzo  del  consenso  deve  tener  conto,  quali elementi di ponderazione, della durata della lesione e della notorietà dell’opera.  A tale fine l’Ufficio ritiene di poter procedere senza necessità di attività tecniche alla luce:

– dei contratti versati agli atti dall’attrice e stipulati con soggetti terzi -estranei  alla  lite-  per  la sincronizzazione  di  alcuni  pezzi  musicali  in  altrettanti  analoghi  spot  pubblicitari,  ove  viene specificamente pattuito il prezzo del consenso con il titolare dei relativi diritti, con importi che oscillano da € 20.00,00 ad € 120.000,00 (cfr. in particolare documenti n.23, 25, 26, 27 e 28 di parte attrice) ;

– della durata della lesione sulle reti televisive, protrattasi dal 9.10.2015 al 10 dicembre 2015;

– dell’impiego, su molteplici canali promozionali, dell’hashtag promozionale Guaglione (cfr. doc. 4, 13, 14,15 di parte attrice). 

Parte  convenuta  non  ha infine adempiuto all’ordine di esibizione disposto dal giudice istruttore con ordinanza ritualmente notificata. Ritiene  dunque  il  Collegio  congruo  liquidare  l’importo,  a  titolo  di  risarcimento  del  danno,  di  € 50.000,00- già liquidato in moneta attuale- oltre interessi legali dalla pronuncia al saldo.>

Opera elaborata su commissione: a chi spettano i diritti? Su di un contratto malscritto

Un autore di remix concorda con l’autore dell’opera base un lavoro appunto di remix (musicale) dela prima.

Si accorge poi di una contraffazione e agisce in giudizio.

Gli viene però eccepita la carenza di legittimazione ad agire, dato che nel contratto stava scritto:  <<I acknowledge and agree that the services rendered (or to be rendered) by Remixer hereunder do not entitle Remixer or me to any ownership or financial interest in the underlying musical composition(s) embodied in the Remix Master(s), and I specifically agree that neither Remixer nor I will make any claims to the contrary.>>

Il dubbio interpretaivo naturalmente si appunta soprattutto sull’espressione <<in the underlying musical composition(s)>>: si riferisce all’opera base oppure all’elaborazione? A quest’ultima, dice il giudice, per cui l’elaboratore ha ab initio rinunciato ai diritti di copyright sulla propria creazione, frutto dell’attività elaborativa

Si tratta di UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 08.04.2021, caso CV 19-3934 PSG (JPRx), Artem Stoliarov v. Marshmello Creative, LLC, et al..

sul punto specifico così motoiva: <<Under the Remixer Declaration, the “Remix Master(s)” are recorded performances of theRemix Composition by Plaintiff. See Remixer Declaration (each Remix Master consists of thefeatured performance by Arty of the results and proceeds of his remixing services). Therefore,the Disclaimer Provision’s reference to “the underlying musical composition(s) embodied in theRemix Master(s)” can only refer to the Remix Composition.

Accordingly, even if the phrase“underlying musical composition” is ambiguous as used elsewhere in the contract, the Disclaimer Provision resolves that ambiguity in favor of Defendants’ interpretation—i.e.,“underlying musical composition” as used in the Remixer Declaration means the RemixComposition.Accordingly, from the terms of the contract it is clear that Plaintiff disclaimed “anyownership or financial interest” in the Remix Composition. See Remixer Declaration ¶ C. Thisnecessarily includes his ownership and financial interest in the Arty Elements, which were partof the Remix Composition. See Brem-Air Disposal v. Cohen, 156 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.1998) (“‘[A]ny’ means ‘any.’”). As such, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment onPlaintiff’s infringement claims because Plaintiff disclaimed his ownership and financial interestsin the Arty Elements>>

Pare strano che professionisti della musica non precisino l’oggetto del contratto. Ma forse l’avevano stipulato senza l’assistenza di un legale.

Avvertimento per gli operatori: precisare bene, oltre che i soggetti, pure l’oggetto degli atti dispositivi.

Riproduzione elaborata della fotografia di Prince da parte di Andy Wharol: contraffazione e/o fair use (transformative o derivative use)?

La nota riproduzione del ritratto di Prince da parte di Wharol (poi: W.) è oggetto di lite giudiziaria negli Stati Uniti.

Il lavoro di W. si basò su iniziale scatto della nota fotografa Lynn Goldsmith (G.), “specializzata in celebrità”. La quale l’aveva licenziata a Vanity Fair “for an use as artist reference” (cioè affinchè un artista possa “create a work of art based on [the] image reference”p .7/8).

Solo che detto artista fu … Wharol , il quale poi non si limitò al lavoro per Vanity Fair, ma produsse pure le famose Prince Series, consistenti in altri 15 lavori su tela e carta, p. 9.

La corte di appello del secondo circuito con sentenza 26 marzo 2021, Docket No. 19-2420-cv, A. Wharol Foundation c. Goldsmith,  riforma la sentenza di primo grado 01.07.2019 (p. 12), che aveva concesso senza esitazioni il fair use, e decide in senso opposto. (si vedano la fotografia iniziale e la prima riproduzione di W. per Vanity Fair nella sentenza).

Nessuno dei quattro fattori menzioanti dalla morma sul fair use (17 U.S. Code § 107), infatti, avvantaggia la Fondazione W.: al contrario, tutti avvantaggiano la fotografa G.a.

Particolarmente dettgliato è l’esame del primo fattore, a sua volta articolato nell’alternativa transformative/derivative work (il secondo non è prodotto da fair use, al pari delle nostre opere derivate) , p.16 ss, e nel requisito del commercial use, p. 33 ss.

Sul primo punto ricordo solo che per la corte l’uso trasformativo c’è , se è tale per  fruitori e cioè se viene così precepito, non se è tale per l’artista (o nelle sue intenzioni), p. 26/7: il che parrebbe per vero un’ovvietà.

In breve ,<<the Prince Series retains the essential elements of its source material, and Warhol’s modifications serve chiefly to magnify some elements of that material and minimize others. While the cumulative effect of those alterations may change the Goldsmith Photograph in ways that give a different impression of its subject, the Goldsmith Photograph remains the recognizable foundation upon which the Prince Series is built>>, p. 31.

Seguono poi gli altri punti:

B. The Nature of the Copyrighted Work, p. 35 ss;

C. The Amount and Substantiality of the Use, p. 37 ss;

D. The Effect of the Use on the Market for the Original, p. 44 ss.

In conclusione , la corte esamina anche la questione (logicamente a monte) del se l’opera di W. sia substantially similar allo scatto di G. (p, 51 ss): e naturalmente risponde di si, p. 55

vedi Commento in artnet.com .