Author: Courtney Lang

As seen in parts 1 and part 2 of our blog series, where there is art, there are artists who love to push boundaries, particularly in copyright law. This is very much the case where artists create works based on or appropriated from works created by other artists. It goes to the call of the question ­– does this constitute copyright infringement or is it fair use?  This blog is the final part, the third installment, in our series which discusses fair use cases visual artists should know about.

Works of Visual Art Have Sketched the Contours of the Fair Use Doctrine

Fair use is a defense to copyright infringement, that permits the unauthorized use of copyright-protected works in some circumstances. Courts analyze fair use on a case-by-case basis, given each matter is very fact-intensive, but conduct a balancing test of the statutory factors. These four factors are:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. The nature of the copyrighted work;
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

In the past, fair use arguments in the visual art context were often decided on whether a use is transformative enough under the first fair use factor. The “transformative use” doctrine is a copyright law concept developed by courts that is considered under the first fair use factor. Applying this doctrine, courts examine whether the allegedly infringing use adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, in a way which does not substitute for the original use of the work.

The Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. first outlined this principle, stating that the transformative use test focuses on “whether the new work merely ‘supersede[s] the objects’ of the original creation, or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character . . .” This subfactor of the fair use analysis came to dominate many infringement cases, including many visual art work cases, eventually leading to it overwhelm the fair use analysis and render the other fair use factors almost meaningless.

However, the Supreme Court recently brought some balance back to the fair use test in the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith case. Below are a few fair use cases that visual artists should know, which provide a snapshot of what courts have looked at, and how fair use analysis has evolved across several high-profile visual arts cases.

Blanch v. Koons

Visual artist Jeff Koons made a collage using various photographs including a copyright-protected photograph taken by fashion photographer, Andrea Blanch, which depicted a woman’s legs reclining on a man’s lap. Koons cropped and re-oriented this photograph prior to placing in the collage amongst other pictures of pairs of women’s legs.

In determining that Koons’ use qualified as fair use, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals placed significant emphasis on the first factor, transformative use test. The court found that Koons used Blanch’s image as fodder for his social commentary in a way where he did not merely reproduce the image, but rather used it as “raw material” to fuel his own objective of providing “commentary on the social and aesthetic consequences of mass media.”

The court was further convinced that Koons’ use was transformative based on his testimony that he used Blanch’s photograph precisely for its mass media appeal to make his social commentary. The court thus weighed the first fair use factor in favor of a fair use finding, giving heavy weight to Koons’ “substantially transformative” use, and thus, did not significantly weigh the commercial nature of Koons’ use. Because the court found Koons’ use very transformative, this bled into the court’s decision that the other factors either weighed in Koons’ favor or had limited weight, ultimately leading the court to hold that his fair use defense was valid. 

Cariou v. Prince

Photographer Patrick Cariou published a book of portraits and landscape photographs that he took in Jamaica. Defendant, known appropriation artist Richard Prince altered and incorporated several of Cariou’s photographs into a series of paintings and collages called Canal Zone that he exhibited at a gallery and in the gallery’s catalog.

In finding that most of the uses of the photographs in Canal Zone qualified for the fair use exception, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Prince’s uses were transformative because his works manifested an “entirely different aesthetic from Cariou’s photographs,” particularly that Prince’s “composition, presentation, scale, color palette, and media [were] fundamentally different and new compared to the photographs . . .” to the point where Cariou’s photographs were “unrecognizable.”

Even though Prince himself admitted to not having a particular message in his appropriation and use of Cariou’s works, the court found that Prince’s work could be transformative without having to comment on the originals because the use was so “transformative” and extended far beyond mere “cosmetic” or “minimal alterations. This case further highlighted the continual trend for the transformative use subfactor of the first factor to completely swallow-up the entire fair use analysis, leading courts to quickly brush past, or be dismissive of the other fair use factors. However, the appropriate balancing act was restored in a later visual arts case, determined by the Supreme Court.

Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts v. Goldsmith

This visual arts case centered around the appropriation of a photograph by pop artist, Andy Warhol in developing his famous silkscreen paintings of the musician, Prince. Photographer Lynn Goldsmith had licensed her photograph of Prince to Vanity Fair for an artist reference, but without her knowledge and authorization, the image was utilized and appropriated by Warhol to create the series of silkscreen prints of the musician. Vanity Fair paid AWF a fee of $10,000 for the use of one of these silkscreen prints, Orange Prince, on the cover of its magazine commemorating the late musician, but nothing was given to Goldsmith.

Here, the Supreme Court finally clarified and narrowed the “transformative use” doctrine, placing it back in its proper place as one subfactor of the first fair use factor. The Court held that AWF’s licensing of the Orange Prince for the magazine cover served essentially the same commercial purpose as Goldsmith’s original work, namely, that both Goldsmith’s photograph and Orange Prince were images licensed to magazines for stories depicting Prince. Because AWF’s use of Goldsmith’s photograph to illustrate a story about Prince was so similar to the photograph’s typical use, the Court noted that AWF needed a “particularly compelling justification.”

However, the Court stated that because AWF offered no justification at all, other than that the photograph was needed to supposedly convey a new meaning or message, this was “not enough for the first factor to favor fair use.”  The Court’s decision breathed life once more into the other fair use considerations in the first factor (and the other three factors) and rebalanced a fair use doctrine that had run amok with the dominance of the transformative use subfactor.

For more discussion on the implications of the AWF v. Goldsmith case, read our case page on the lawsuit.

Conclusion

Visual art works have been instrumental in shaping copyright law, particularly when it comes to shaping of the fair use analysis, including the transformative use test. Such fair use cases that visual artists should know of illustrate that merely claiming different messages or meanings alone will no longer weigh the first fair use factor in favor of a fair use finding (or for that matter, the entire fair use analysis) and that it is just one of many factors to be balanced, and should be weighed against other factors.

If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

In the previous blog post in this series (Part 1), we presented and discussed several visual arts copyright cases addressing the issue of copyrightability. In this blog, we look at authorship copyright cases visual artists should know and be aware of.

Considerations When Determining a Work Made for Hire

Under copyright law, the creator of the original expression in a work of visual art is usually considered the author of the work. However, there is an exception to the rule when the work is created as a “work made for hire.” Under this exception, the party that hired the individual who created the work is the author and copyright owner of the work. As section 101 of the Copyright Act states, this occurs when either (1) a work is prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment or (2) when a type of work is created as a result of an express written agreement between the creator and a party specially ordering or commissioning the work and in which the work falls into one of the nine categories enumerated in the statute.

Under this exception, disputes and complications can arise, particularly in ownership and authorship cases that visual artists should know. This was the issue in the notable case Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid. In this case, Community for Creative Non-Violence (CCNV) paid sculptor James Earl Reid for a statue that depicted the plight of homeless people for a Christmas pageant in Washington D.C. CCNV members visited Reid’s studio as he made the statue and gave suggestions and directions about its appearance. CCNV paid Reid the final installment on delivery, but they did not discuss copyright ownership in the sculpture. They both subsequently filed competing copyright registration certificates, and a lawsuit followed.

The Supreme Court explored how the term “employee” has a particular meaning, derived from common law agency principles, wherein one party performs labor for another under circumstances in which that other exerts substantial control over the work environment on the laborer, as well as the manner of performance. Numerous factors figured in this equation, such as the level of skill required, tax treatment of the putative employee, the singularity of the assignment (i.e., CCNV had no right to assign additional projects), the level of supervision, the times worked, and the source of the instrumentalities of the labor.

Applying these factors in this case, the Court found that although CCNV exerted direction and control over the progress of the work, many other factors weighed against finding that Reid created a work made for hire. These include the facts that Reid was retained only for this single assignment, he was not on CCNV’s payroll or had Social Security taxes deducted or benefits paid out, and he provided his own work area and tools. The Court thus held that Reid was not an employee of CCNV, but rather an independent contractor.

Visual artists should ensure that expectations around copyright ownership, independent contractor status, or employment status are made clear before initiation of a project, particularly if they are paid or hired by a third party to make a work.

Human Authorship Requirement

In this digital era, when AI is being utilized to manufacture works of art, the human authorship requirement is a growing and contentious issue. Copyright laws protect original works of authorship, meaning such work “must be created [or authored] by a human being.” Time and time again, the Copyright Office has stated that for a work to be eligible for copyright registration, the works must have been the “fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind.” In essence, copyright protection is only available for works of art that are creations of human authors.

The distinction between human and non-human contributions arose in an authorship copyright case that visual artists should know, Kelley v. Chicago Park Distr. In that case, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals questioned whether a living garden was  “authored.” In 1986, Chapman Kelley installed a wildflower display in Chicago’s Grant Park, “Wildflower Works,” which was promoted as a living work of art. Specifically, Kelley designed this arrangement and placement of flowers to allow them to “blossom sequentially, changing colors throughout the growing season and increasing brightness towards the center of each ellipse.” In determining copyrightability, the court first noted that “a living garden lacks the kind of authorship and stable fixation normally required to support copyright.” The court emphasized that authorship is a “human endeavor” and as such, “works owing their form to the forces of nature cannot be copyrighted.” Applying such principles, the court found Kelley’s work to be cultivated, not “authored,” and owing its form and appearance to “natural forces,” despite the contention (insufficient here) that a florist who tends to such displays can assist in arranging its appearance.

The human authorship requirement is now being tested in the AI space, particularly where humans input prompts into generative AI tools and systems, which then generate works of art. What has resulted are disputes over the Copyright Office’s refusals to register AI-generated works.

Such a contest arose in Thaler v. Perlmutter, a case resulting from the Copyright Office’s refusal to register Stephen Taler’s two-dimensional artwork titled, “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” for its lack of sufficient human authorship. The author of this work was identified as the “Creativity Machine,” which “autonomously created [the work] by a computer algorithm . . .” In line with the Copyright Office’s stance, judicial precedent, and statutory text, the District Court for the District of Columbia agreed that the work was not protectable, stating that “[c]opyright has never stretched so far, however, as to protect works generated by new forms of technology operating absent any guiding human hand . . . Human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.” Specifically, a copyrightable work must have originated from an author “with the capacity for intellectual, creative, or artistic labor,” i.e., a human.

Visual artists should be aware that human authorship is a fundamental requirement to obtaining copyright protection and be particularly mindful of this principle when creating works that may contain elements that are generated or produced by a non-human.

Conclusion

Authorship is a crucial principle that underlies copyright law, and is a requirement for copyrightability and significant to determining ownership issues. As discussed in the authorship copyright cases above, visual artists should be aware of how making works for organizations/entities, from elements of nature, or with the aid of technology, can limit or downright affect ownership and enforcement issues of the works they create. As has been stated time and time again, human authorship and contribution is essential for copyright protection. The next and final installment in this blog series, Part 3, will focus on fair use cases visual artists should know.

If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

What do Andy Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup Cans, Yayoi Kusama’s Pumpkin, and David Hockney’s Portrait of an Artist (Pool with Two Figures) have in common? You guessed it—they are works of visual art, a type of art that runs the gamut of paintings, sculptures, photographs, and even architectural styles. (For more information on photography cases in particular, check out our blog post on photography cases photographers should know.) The visual art form constitutes one of many types of works that are protected under the Copyright Act and have been the subject of several high-profile copyright cases that have been instrumental in defining our copyright laws today. Presented below is a selection of copyright cases visual artists should be aware of, as well as tangible takeaways from each, focusing on the issues of copyrightability.

Protectable Expression versus Non-Protectable Elements

Copyright protection hinges on two requirements: (1) fixation in a tangible medium and (2) originality, meaning a work must be minimally creative. The minimal creativity threshold to fulfill copyright’s originality requirement is very low, as discussed in our FAQ answer. However, there are additional contours on what constitutes protectable elements as illustrated in several copyright cases that visual artists in the fine arts should be mindful of.

Facts and Ideas are Not Protected by Copyright

A crucial principle that visual artists should know is that copyright law protects the expression of ideas, facts, or commonplace elements, but not the ideas, facts, or commonplace elements themselves. In the visual arts, there are many times when common or natural elements are utilized in the creation of a visual art piece. However, the Copyright Act does not protect things like common geometric shapes (e.g., circles, ovals, spheres, triangles, etc.), mere variations on familiar symbols/designs, mere coloration or variations in colors, typeface or lettering, or naturally occurring/discovered material (e.g., finding a rock, polishing it, and mounting it on a stand will not be protectable). But what copyright law does protect, is the expression of those non-protectable elements. These distinctions are explained in certain copyright law doctrines, like the idea-expression dichotomy, merger doctrine, and the scènes à faire doctrine.

Copyrightability issues were illustrated in the case Satava v. Lowry. In that case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the claims of a successful sculptor, Satava, who argued that his depiction of a jellyfish “with tendril-like tentacles or rounded bells,” in “bright colors,” or “swimming vertically” was protected by copyright law. The court held that these elements were instead typical qualities of jellyfishes found in nature and lacked sufficient originality to warrant copyright protection.

The court also discussed how the idea of producing a glass-in-glass jellyfish sculpture gave rise to only a few variations of expressions that would naturally follow from such a sculpture, like how it was natural for the depicted “jellyfish [to] “almost fill[] the entire volume” of the outer glass shroud, because such proportion is standard in glass-in-glass sculpture.” Where there are only a few ways to express a particular idea, here, being “clear glass [as] the most appropriate setting for an aquatic animal” and sculptures filling the glass as “standard,” the idea and expression merged, such that those expressions were not protectable.

At the same time, the court did note several elements in which Satava “made some copyrightable contributions: the distinctive curls of particular tendrils; the arrangement of certain hues; the unique shape of jellyfishes’ bells.” In doing so, the court recognized that a depiction of a natural object or fact may express the requisite minimal creativity for copyright protection. And despite holding “thin copyright protection” for Satava’s jellyfish sculptures, the court further noted that “a combination of unprotectable elements is eligible for copyright protection only if those elements are numerous enough and their selection and arrangement original enough that their combination constitutes an original work of authorship.”

Visual artists should be mindful of the distinction between (protectable) expressions of ideas and (unprotectable) ideas, facts, or commonplace elements themselves. Copyright law does not protect naturally occurring, common, or “standard” elements in works of visual art, but it will protect a visual artist’s own depiction and expression of those unprotectable elements or a visual artist’s particular arrangement, selection, coordination of such elements.

Useful Articles/Utilitarian Elements Not Protected by Copyright

Visual artists should also be mindful of when their creations may be considered to be part of a “useful article.” Copyright law defines “useful articles” as those which have an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or convey information­—like clothing or furniture. Copyright law protects useful works to the extent the designs of a useful article can be identified separately from the article and are capable of existing independently of the utilitarian aspects of the work.

Thus, a useful article may have both copyrightable and uncopyrightable features. For example, a carving on the back of a chair or a floral design on flatware are creative expressions which can be protected by copyright, but the utilitarian design of the chair (its three or four legs) or flatware (the prongs of a fork or the concave shape of a spoon) themselves would not be protectable because these designs are part of the objects’ functionality rather than a portrayal of original, creative expression— e.g., the legs hold the chair upright, and the flatware designs help with picking up food.

This limitation, and its related two-part separability test, was illustrated in the Supreme Court case of Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, Inc. Varsity Brands had designed and sold cheerleading uniforms and secured over 200 U.S. copyright registrations for two-dimensional designs appearing on their uniforms, which included “combinations, positionings, and arrangements of elements” like “chevrons . . . lines, curves, stripes, angles, diagonals, . . . coloring, and shapes.” Star Athletica had also marketed and sold similar-looking cheerleading uniforms, so Varsity Brands sued for copyright infringement.

In determining the copyrightability of the disputed designs, the Court cited to Mazer v. Stein, a case in which it found that respondents’ statuette that was designed as part of a lamp base was copyrightable. Using the Mazer case, the Court reaffirmed the principle that “[i]f a design would have been copyrightable as a standalone pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work [PGS], it is copyrightable if created first as part of a useful article.”

Accordingly, the Court found that the designs of the cheerleading uniforms satisfied both prongs of the separability test because the decorations could be identified as having their own PGS qualities, and they would be copyrightable on their own if separated from the uniforms as two-dimensional artwork. For example, the Court explained that if the surface designs/decorations had been separated from the uniform and “applied in another medium—­for example, on a painter’s canvas—they would qualify as ‘two-dimensional . . . works of . . . art’” and thus, be eligible for copyright protection.

Visual artists should keep in mind that when their works of visual art contain design elements that are mechanical or utilitarian and which cannot stand on their own as a copyrightable work, then these elements will not be protected by copyright.

Conclusion

Copyrightability is a concept that touches upon all original works of creative expression, and as discussed previously, has been illustrated in the several copyright cases that visual artists should know that we discussed in this blog. Using these cases as guidelines, visual artists can be aware of what may affect and limit the extent to which their expressions are protectable. Stay tuned for the part 2 in this blog series which will discuss copyright cases that visual artists should know about, focusing on copyright authorship.

If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

As November unfolds, we find ourselves at the intersection of two significant cultural celebrations: Native American Heritage Month 2023 and Hip-Hop History Month. While many are familiar with the traditional aspects of Native American culture, there is a vibrant modern artistic movement that is often overlooked – Native American Hip-Hop. 

Hip-Hop has long been recognized as a powerful tool for social change, giving marginalized communities a platform to express their experiences and advocate for justice. For Native Americans, Hip-Hop provides a means to address issues such as land rights, cultural appropriation, and representation. This dynamic genre combines traditional elements with contemporary beats, providing a powerful platform for Indigenous voices to be heard. Influential artists like Frank Waln, Supaman, Pooky G, and LightningCloud are shaping the genre with their artistry and narrative. Through their rhymes, they challenge stereotypes, confront historical injustices, and call listeners to action. 

Frank Waln: Up-and-Coming Sicangu Lakota Hip-Hop Artist and Music Producer

Frank Waln is an award-winning Sicangu Lakota Hip-Hop artist, music producer, and activist who grew up on the Rosebud Reservation in South Dakota. Waln’s first experience with Hip-Hop began after fatedly discovering an Eminem CD on the side of the road. This introduction began his immersion into the genre, leading him to recognize the parallels between the African American experience conveyed through Hip-Hop and his own Native American experience with oppression, colonialism, and genocide. 

In 2010, Waln collaborated with Thomas Schmidt, Andre Easter, and Kodi DeNoyer to create Nake Nula Waun. Their album “Scars and Bars“ won Waln the Best Producer award at the 2010 Native American Music Awards, with their group also receiving the Best Hip-Hop Recording award in 2011. Waln’s solo career kicked off with his single “Hear My Cry,” in collaboration with Cody Blackbird, which was nominated for two Nammys (Native American Music Awards), in 2013. His lyrical activism earned him a spot on “7 First Nation Rappers Crushing Stereotypes of Indigenous People Through Music” by BDG. In 2013, he released “Oil 4 Blood,” a powerful rallying call against the environmentally devastating Keystone XL Pipeline. His recent works, such as “Born Ready” and “In the Key of Lakota,” continue to resonate with social justice movements as odes to cultural identity and resistance. 

Alongside his thriving music career, Waln has established himself as a prolific writer, contributing to several publications, including Indigenous Hip Hop and Performance as Resurgence (Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education, and Society) and My Family’s Thanksgiving on the Reservation Is a Rebuke to America’s Colonialism (The Guardian). Whether delivering performances or leading workshops, Waln is committed to imparting the values of self-empowerment and the importance of expressing one’s truth worldwide.

Supaman: Spiritually Innovative Apsaalooke Rapper and Traditional Dancer

Supaman’s (Christian Parrish Takes the Gun) has claimed a distinctive niche in the music industry with his unique style and creativity. With an original approach to the genre that incorporates traditional dance moves and outfits into his stage presence, Supaman bridges the gap between ancient traditions and modern music. His artistic journey began in fourth grade as a powwow dancer. In elementary school, he transitioned to writing poetry, ultimately evolving into rap music, sharing a similar social calling to Hip-Hop as Waln. In the 90s, he began DJ’ing, where he spontaneously coined the name Supaman during a DJ competition, marking a pivotal moment in his career.

After a profound spiritual encounter, Supaman committed himself to infusing his work with spiritual concepts. In 2003, Supaman founded the Native American Hip-Hop group Rezawrecktion, whose inaugural album, “It’s Time,” won a Native American Music Award in 2005. His solo work includes the innovative “Prayer Loop Song,” where he utilizes various instruments, including the drum and the ute, all while beatboxing, rapping, and remixing multiple Native tracks. His unparalleled style and creativity garnered him the 2017 MTV VMA award for “Best Fight Against the System,” a Nammy , the North American Indigenous Image Award, and seven Tunney Awards. 

Pooky G: Multitalented Female Hip-Hop Artist and Healer

Pooky G (Roni Gauthier) is a female indigenous Hip-Hop artist, Model, and Actor born and raised on Treaty 6 Territory Amiskwaciwâskahikan (Edmonton). Growing up with an MC dad, Pooky G’s roots in the genre run deep. For Pooky G, music transcends mere entertainment; it’s a form of therapy, a channel for healing, and a platform for addressing unspoken issues. In an interview with Alberta Native News, she shares, “My motivation is knowing that I can use music as an outlook for healing and getting out a lot of stuff that needs to be said and a lot of issues that people deal with and don’t speak about. So it gives them something to relate to; inspiring others keeps me motivated and inspired as well.” 

Most recently, her EP album, “So Far So Hood,” earned her the Hip-Hop Album of the Year award at the 2022 International Indigenous Hip-Hop Awards. Her passion for healing has also led her to her work as an Aboriginal family needs support worker and a workshop facilitator for Going M.I.L.E.S.—a touring Indigenous youth empowerment program. In a further showcase of her multitalented accomplishments, Pooky G hosts Indigenous Hip-Hop as a DJ at two Radio Stations broadcast through Windspeaker media, recently starred as Lisa Cardinal in “Abducted,” and is featured as a model in several magazines. 

LightningCloud: Electro-House/Hip-Hop MC Powerhouse Duo

LightningCloud is an Electro-House/Hip-Hop fusion duo consisting of Crystle Lightning (Cree) and MC RedCloud (Wixárika), bringing a dynamic energy to the Native American Hip-Hop scene. With a mix of Hip-Hop, electronic beats, and traditional indigenous sounds, LightningCloud’s debut album “LightningCloud“ won Best Hip-Hop Album at the 2012 Aboriginal People’s Choice Music Awards and Best New Artist in 2013. Notably, the pair clinched victory battling against MCs across Southern California, winning Power 106’s “Who’s Next: Battle for the Best,” earning them a cash prize and performance with Kendrick Lamar. Currently, the pair are touring with their hit musical “Bear Grease,” a Treaty 6 Indigenous twist to the classic musical “Grease.”

Crystle Lightning

Hailing from Edmonton, Alberta, Crystle Lightning is a Plains Cree/First Nations artist known for her versatile talents in film, music, DJing, and as a Hip-Hop MC. At just 13 years old, Lightning embarked on her acting career, starring in films such as “Saving Jessica Lynch,“ “American Pie Presents: Band Camp,” and “Older Than America.” In 2021, she won Best Actress in a Drama Series for “Trickster“ At the 9^th Canadian Screen Awards.

After attending a stirring set performed by DJ Lady Tribe in LA, Lightning was moved toward a musical journey of her own. She soon took a musical apprenticeship with Christi Mills, later joining her as one-half of the performance crew Ladies of the House. Leaving the DJ booth to enter center stage, Lightning paired up with MC RedCloud, forming LightningCloud. 

MC RedCloud

MC RedCloud (Henry Andrade) hails from Hawthorne, California, boasting a rich heritage of Indigenous and Mexican roots. Detailed in his album “Hawthorne’s Most Wanted,” RedCloud underwent a transformative experience, leaving behind the gang violence of his adolescence and entering the Hip-Hop and gospel scene in the early 90s. In his solo show, “Evandalism,” performed at the Edmonton Fringe Theatre, he affirms, “Music, dance, and especially Hip-Hop, really helped me take a big turn in my life; I really fell in love with this art. It helped carry me.” 

After signing with Syntax Records, RedCloud secured his place in the music industry, unveiling a series of solo albums, including standout releases like “Is This Thing On?,” and “Traveling Circus.” He embarked on tours alongside esteemed artists such as KRS-One, Immortal Technique, Evidence, Tech N9ne, and Murs throughout his tenure with the label. In 2010, RedCloud left Syntax Records to form his independent record label “1491 Nations”, subsequently releasing his first mixtape “1491 Nation Presents: MC RedCloud.” LightningCloud was formed shortly thereafter in 2012 alongside Crystle Lightning.

In a testament to his extraordinary talent, RedCloud set the Guinness World Record for freestyle rapping, breaking the previous 17-hour-long record by freestyling for 18 hours, one minute and 14 seconds.

Native American Hip-Hop’s Fusion of Culture and Advocacy

Through Hip-Hop, Native artists are not only preserving cultural narratives but advocating for social justice and conjoining marginalized voices across communities. As we immerse ourselves in the influential beats and lyrics of Frank Waln, Supaman, Pooky G, and LightningCloud, we find ourselves on a journey of reflection and empowerment. However, change doesn’t happen in the abstract—it starts with each of us. It’s in our conversations, our actions, and our support for these artists and the causes they champion. Because they aren’t just artists; they’re advocates, storytellers, and cultural torchbearers. That’s the power of Hip-Hop, it has the potential to transcend music. So, turn up the volume, listen closely, and let their creative defiance ignite you in joining their fight for recognition, representation, and justice.

If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!