In 1709 the Statute of Anne created the first purpose-built copyright law. This blog, founded just 300 short and unextended years later, is dedicated to all things copyright, warts and all. To contact the 1709 Blog, email Jeremy at firstname.lastname@example.org
1709 Blog: for all the copyright community
Monday, 30 April 2012
Is Titanic 3-D a new work?
Les Demoiselles d'Avignon
An interesting article recently
appeared in The New York Times. It concerns the use in both the
1997 Titanic film and its 2012 3-D version of a copy of Pablo Picasso's most
celebrated 1907 paintingLes Demoiselles d'Avignon.
As is well known, the painting did not sink with the Titanic, but
placidly hangs on the walls of the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New
Picassodied in 1973 and the rights
(including image rights) in the huge artistic legacy the Málaga-born artist left behind are now administered
by thePicasso Estate.
At the time when the original Titanic film was made, the estate refused to grant film-maker James Cameron permission to include any images of Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. However, Cameron
used an image of the painting anyway and Titanic features a
scene in which Rose-Kate Winslet looks at what is presumably a copy (?) of the
Rose while admiring Picasso's revolutionary painting
It was only after theArtists
Rights Society complained that the film-maker
agreed to pay a fee for the use of the image of Picasso’s 1907 work.
Now that Cameron has released a 3-D version of Titanic, the Artist
Rights Society has asked him to pay again for the use of the painting's image,
asserting that the 3-D version of the film is a new work and, as such, is
not covered by the previous agreement.
“I don’t expect we’ll have any difficulty,” said Theodore Feder,
president of the society, who contacted James Cameron a few days ago.
Arguing that a
3-D version of a film released a few years earlier is a new work may have
interesting consequences, which go far beyond requests for using the image of a
Copyright: king of the world?
implies that Titanic 3-D is a
derivative work, as per§101of the US Copyright Act, according to which
work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a
translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization,
motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment,
condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast,
transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions,
annotations, elaborations, or other modifications,which, as a whole,represent
an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
However, as is made clear by §103(b),
The copyright in a
compilation or derivative work extends only to thematerial contributed by the author of
such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work,
and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The
copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge
the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright
protection in the preexisting material.
One may wonder whether the use of 3-D techniques is
sufficient to a finding that "new" copyright subsists in the entire 3-D
version of a film and be such as to trigger new requests for the use of images
which featured in earlier 2-D version.
Certainly, if this was the case, then would it be
sufficient to release 3-D versions of films in which copyright is about to
expire to extend the duration of protection almost indefinitely? In other
words: is 3-D the newcolourisationas far as copyright is