Is a California City Using Copyright to Prevent Resident From Posting Videos Criticizing Mayor and Council Members?

As recently reported, the city of Inglewood in California filed last March a copyright infringement suit in the Central District of California against Joseph Teixeira, one of its residents. The complaint claims he “copied and distributed no less than five of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works by making derivative works and posting copies of the derivative works on the Internet without authorization.” The case is City of Inglewood v. Joseph Teixeira, 2:15-cv-01815.

The “copyrighted works” at stake are videos of Council meetings, and the allegedly infringing use is the making and publishing on YouTube, under the name “Dehol Truth,” of six videos using footage of five meetings to comment on topics related to the meeting or to Council members. Defendant is heard in voice over, narrating his point of view on a particular topic. Footage of the meetings sometimes cut to documents, such as a letter or a statute, to further enhance the narrative. Defendant also added sometimes written text over the images. The complaint states that Defendant “merely use[d] the [videos] to get attention, generate income, and avoid having to create Defendant’s own legitimate videos.”

Defendant moved to dismiss the case, claiming that Plaintiff was precluded by California law from securing copyright protection in these public records, and that, even if Plaintiff indeed owned the copyright for the videos, their use by Defendant is protected by Section 107 of the Copyright Act. See here, here and here for Defendant’s arguments. Defendant is represented pro bono and the briefs are a delight to read.

Can a City hold a Copyright in Recordings of its Meetings?

 Section 105 of the Copyright Act precludes copyright protection for any work of the United States Government, but applies only to the federal government. Plaintiff cited County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, a California Court of appeals case, to posit that state law determines whether copyright may be claimed in works of state and local government. In this case, the California Court of appeals was not convinced by the County’s interpretation of Section 6254.9(e) of the California Public Records Act (CPRA), which applies to computer software developed by a state or local agency, and states that "Nothing in this section is intended to limit any copyright protections,” as “expressly provid[ing] for copyright protection despite production of public records" (at 1332).

Plaintiff conceded in its Opposition that California law precluded it from copyrighting the videos, but then argued that it is not bound by state law.

Are Defendant’s Videos Protected by Fair Use?

Even if the videos are indeed protected by copyright (not likely), is their use by Defendant fair?

The complaint alleged that Defendant “had made derivative works of the [videos] by reproducing [them] in substantial part. The derivative works have no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition. The derivative works (“Infringing Copies”) merely use the Copyrighted Works to get attention, generate income, and avoid having to create Defendant’s own legitimate videos.”

Defendant addressed the four fair use factors. He first claimed that the purpose and character of the use weighed in his favor as his videos were transformative. Defendant’s videos used “short clips from lengthy City Council meeting heavily modified and interspersed with original text and audio, for the entirely different purpose of criticizing officials for their conduct at these proceedings.”

While noting he would prove that his use was non-commercial should the case survive the motion to dismiss, Defendant argued that even if the court would be convinced that the use was commercial, a commercial use can still be fair, citing the Supreme Court Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell case.

Defendant also claimed the second fair use factor, the nature of the work used, to be in his favor, as the videos were “purely informational works” with a copyright “at best thin,” if any. As for the third factor, the amount taken, Defendant “use[d] a reasonable amount of the footage [of the meetings]” to create his videos.

As for the fourth factor, the effect of the market, Defendant argued that “[n]ot only does [this factor] unequivocally favor fair use, this inquiry also exposes the completely baseless nature of this action,” as Plaintiff cannot claim any economic harm since its duty is to provide a copy of meetings for free to the public, and thus, there cannot be a market for such meeting videos. Plaintiff conceded that California law prohibits it from making money from these public records, but argued that it had to recoup the cost of installing a video recording system. But Defendant  argued that Section 6253(b) of the CPRA provides that public agencies may only charge the public for “direct costs of duplication” and thus the cost of producing the public record cannot be charged to the public.

Defendant’s Videos and First Amendment

Defendant claims that Plaintiff is using copyright to silence political speech, even though “copyright law is not designed to stifle critics” (citing Fisher v. Dees, a 1986 9^th Circuit case). Defendant also cited California’s Brown Act which states that “public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.”

For Defendant, assessing a copyright in a public record would limit public access to this information. He claims that his “speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government… and it occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection,” citing the Supreme Court Snyder v. Phelps case, at 1215. Also, “[t]he City’s aim is clearly to silence [him], and to punish him for his harsh criticism of the Mayor. But his speech is constitutionally protected, and fully consistent with our “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).”

A decision of the Court is expected soon. I will keep you informed.

Photo of Inglewood City Hall courtesy of Flickr user fauxtos under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license.

Photo of tapes courtesy of Flickr user makelessnoise under a CC BY 2.0 license.

Copyright and revenge porn: can you help?

Part of the UK campaign
to stamp out revenge porn

I have recently received a request from a student who is conducting research into the question whether the various rights within the bundle which we affectionately call copyright -- unless we come from jurisdictions that call them authors' rights -- however ill-adapted they may be for the purpose, may be utilised in order to combat revenge porn. In particular, have there been any cases or discussions of this in the European Union? Even information about cases that never made it to court would be good.

If you have any leads or references, please feel free to post them as comments below. If for any reason you'd rather do this by email, that's fine too.

Thanks so much for your help!

The CopyKat - with nets cast wide, the Kat pulls in the Great British Bake Off, the 2020 Olympics, trolls and porn amongst other titbits

The U.S. Department of Justice's recent proposal to amend the consent decrees to allow music publishers to partially withdraw digital rights from collection societies ASCAP and BMI's blanket licenses may be undermined by another change the DoJ is contemplating. Reports say the DoJ has sent letters to the two performance rights societies telling them that on "split works" songs - works which are co-written and therefore co-owned songs where multiple publishers and, often in the US, multiple PROs are involved, new rules might be applied The new proposal is that any writer or any rights holder would be able to issue a license for 100 percent of the song. In other words, the long-established industry practice of each rights owner 'green lighting' their particular portion of a song in order to establish a license - also known as fractional licensing - may no longer be allowed. So even if Sony/ATV or Universal pulled their digital rights from BMI and ASCAP, any songs in their catalogues co-owned with another publisher who was still using the two collection societies for digital would still be available for digital services to stream under their BMI and ASCAP blanket licences. More on Billboard here.

(Image: Mark Bourdillon/Love Productions/BBC)

An advert produced to promote the BBC's amazingly successful televised baking competition 'The Great British Bake Off' has been pulled after a complaint from the publishers of the song: 'The Hills are Alive with the Sound of Music' - which featured in the advert had newly adapted lyrics for the tune originally sung by Julie Andrews in the Sound of Music – including ‘The hills are alive with the smell of baking, with cakes that we baked for a thousand years.’ and other adapted lines include ‘the hills fill my heart with a love of baking’ and co-presenter Paul Hollywood 'sang': ‘I just want to taste every cake that I baked.’ "The advert campaign utilising The Sound of Music is neither authorised nor approved,’ said Bert Fink, senior vice-president (Europe) for Rodgers & Hammerstein."

Quartz tells us that in keeping with its ambition to become the world’s most open institution of its kind, the British Library has released over a million public domain illustrations and other images to the public through Flickr for anyone to reuse, remix or repurpose. So far, these images, which range from Restoration-era cartoons to colonial explorers’ early photographs, have been used on rugs, album covers, gift tags, a mapping project, and an art installation at the Burning Man festival in Nevada, among other things.

The International Olympic Committee has denied claims that one of the the official emblems for the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games, designed by Kenjiro Sano,  infringes the copyright of a Belgian theatre's logo. Belgian designer Olivier Debie has said that the design is similar to one he created for the Theatre De Liege. And yes, this is a copyrihgt claim as the theatre's logo has not been registered as a trademark.  Reports say that the IOC vice-president John Coates told a meeting of the Olympic management: "The IOC and Tokyo have checked all the copyright registers prior to this launch and that logo in Belgium isn't protected. Hmmmmmmm - from a UK perspective that wouldn't quite work Mr Coates ..... since it wouldn't need to be registered to attract copyright protection if it qualified as an original work. 

Techdirt reports that it now appears that a judge has begun to get a little more curious about "copyright troll" Malibu Media and how it goes about finding "infringers" to "shakedown with settlement agreements". Techdirt says that in the past, evidence showed that other similar copyright trolls like Prenda, were engaged in seeding their own content, which would make the file authorized, and thus the shakedown letters a form of "copyright misuse." There have long been rumours that Malibu Media, perhaps in association with the infamous "international men of mystery" running the behind-the-scenes operation out of Germany, may be seeding their own files as well.  Food for thought!

And finally more on Malibu ....  the company behind the X-Art adult movies that has filed more than 3,500 lawsuits against alleged illegal online sharers of its adult content in the USA has been back to court to seek an order to say that labels such as "porn" and “copyright troll” (which the Kat just used!) can't be used against it in court. Whilst a self admitted maker of 'beautiful erotica', Malibu recently filed a motion asking a federal court to block the defendant from using terms that it believes “would be unfairly prejudicial” saying  that as a Plaintiff, Malibu has been referred to in many different negatively connoted ways, including: ‘copyright troll,’ ‘pornographer,’ ‘porn purveyor,’ and ‘extortionist,’” and the  motion reads: “Referring to Plaintiff at trial by any title except ‘Plaintiff’ or ‘Malibu Media’ would be unfairly prejudicial and would only serve to impede the impartial administration of justice.” One commentator added that Malibu may also be protecting it's copyright claims against arguments that pornography cannot be protected by copyright laws in the U.S, not least as some argue that pornography does not promote the progression of useful arts,  More on tne protection of copyright by copyright  here and Eleonora posted an article on this very matter back in 2012 - 'How Porn Friendly is Copyright?' so have a look at this and the coments - which are very relevant here.

Has anyone noticed how much cake has featured on this Blog recently?

Marrakesh Treaty: Mexico makes it nine

The United Mexican States has become the ninth country to commit itself to the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled, according to a media release from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

The Treaty will roar into life three months after 20 countries have ratified or acceded to it, under Article 18 of the Treaty. Curiously, of the first nine, five are from Latin America.

The current list of sign-ups for Marrakesh can be accessed here.

The CopyKat's Baked Cake Social

It seems Twitter is removing 'recycled' jokes which have been re-tweeted. First spotted by @PlagiarismBad, The Verge tell us that at least five separate tweets have been deleted by Twitter for copying this joke: "saw someone spill their high end juice cleanse all over the sidewalk and now I know god is on my side"  Olga Lexell, who, according to her Twitter bio, is a freelance writer in LA, appears to be the first person to publish the joke on Twitter. In a tweet she confirmed that she did file a request to have the tweet that copied her 'joke' removed. Eleonora has posted her thoughts on the IPKat here. 

The MPAA has sued MovieTube, owners of some two-dozen-plus streaming sites, alleging copyright infringement, according to a story from The Hollywood Reporter. MPAA members 20th Century Fox, Columbia Pictures, Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. jointly filed a lawsuit in New York against a number of MovieTube-owned streaming sites. The group is asserting both copyright and trademark claims, and the complaint is filed against both John and Jane Does, and XYZ Corporations, as the MPAA is uncertain of exactly whom they are suing. In total, the MPAA lawsuit names 29 websites. The complaint asserts that the defendants are both willingly and openly breaking copyright laws, and that they are deliberately hiding their identities while doing so. More here.

This from Arts Technica: It's been two years since filmmakers making a documentary about the song "Happy Birthday" filed a lawsuit claiming that the song shouldn't be under copyright. Now, they have filed what they say is "proverbial smoking-gun evidence" that should cause the judge to rule in their favour. The "smoking gun" is a 1922 version of the "Happy Birthday" lyrics, predating Warner/Chappell's 1935 copyright by thirteen years and making the work public domain. That 1922 songbook, along with other versions located through the plaintiffs' investigations, "conclusively prove that any copyright that may have existed for the song itself... expired decades ago."   The original melody for "Happy Birthday to You" was composed in the late 1800s by school teacher Mildred Hill in Louisville, Kentucky. The song was a variation on a composition called "Good Morning to All," with lyrics penned by her sister, Patty Hill. Warner/Chappell said that there was no evidence that the Hills' successor - their sister Jessica Hill - had given up the sisters' copyright to the work. More here on the 1709 Blog and more on Above The Law here.

Librarians across Australia are cooking up a campaign to change the country's copyright laws. However, they want people to bake biscuits and cakes rather than picket Parliament. Social media users are being encouraged to cook a vintage recipe and share a photo of the result. The aim is to encourage the Attorney-General to look at changing the law so that unpublished (orphan) works are treated the same way as published ones. Executive director of the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) Sue McKerracher said the nation had "some rather strange copyright laws".

Old Money, Old Navy, Fabric Copyright Infringement Suit, Oh Dear!

Sugartown Worldwide LLC, the owner of the trademark Lilly Pulitzer and the distributor of the famous fashion brand, is suing Old Navy and its parent company Gap, claiming that the retailer infringed its copyright when it sold several models of clothes and fashion accessories bearing prints which Plaintiff claims were copied from two of its original designs. The case is Sugartown Worldwide LLC v. Old Navy (Apparel), LLC et al, 1:15-cv-02633.

Lilly Pulitzer was a Palm Beach socialite who married a member of the Pulitzer family (as in Pulitzer Prize). She started designing dresses, somewhat by accident, in the late Fifties. As the story goes, she opened a citrus juice stand and needed a dress which would hide stains. The result was a simple shift cut in bright fabrics. The designs often featured animals, beach themes and sunshine, and used a colorful palette evoking life under the sun, at least for the well-heeled and well-moneyed.

The company enjoyed great success in the Sixties and Seventies. After an eclipse, the brand came back in the Nineties, and is still going strong: the complaint states that there are some one hundred Lilly Pulitzer stores in the U.S. selling clothes and accessories, which are also sold in some department stores and online. A Lilly Pulitzer collaboration with discount retailer Target recently sold out the first day of its release.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff’s design team created in 2011, as a work for hire, the “High Tide Design,“ which features the image of a beach, complete with waves and parasols, in blue tones, with some green and yellow accents. Plaintiff registered this design with the U.S. Copyright Office. The “High Tide Design” was incorporated in 2012 in several Lilly Pulitzer models of clothes and accessories.

The Lilly Pulitzer design team also created in 2013 a “Sparks Fly Design,” featuring red sailing boats over a dark blue sea, illuminated by yellow fireworks (see p. 7 of the complaint). Plaintiff also registered this design with the U.S. Copyright Office and used it on some on its models. Some of the products, however, depicted the “Sparks Fly Design” in different color schemes than the original one, such as dark blue boats over a white background.

U.S. copyright law does not protect clothes or even accessories, because they are useful articles, described by the Copyright Act as articles “having an intrinsic utilitarian function” and which are not copyrightable. However, fabric designs, if they are original enough, can be protected by copyright.

The complaint alleges that, in 2015, Old Navy manufactured and sold clothes and accessories “bearing a design copied from and substantially similar to the High Tide Design” and provides images of some of these allegedly infringing goods (see p. 10 of the complaint). The complaint also shows a side-by-side comparison of a pair of printed women’s shorts with a Old Navy pair of women’s printed shorts, which the Plaintiff claims copied the original Lilly Pulitzer design.

The complaint further alleges that Old Navy copied in 2015 the Sparks Fly Design and manufactured clothes and accessories bearing the firework print. The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison of a Sparks Fly Design Lilly Pulitzer model and an Old Navy pair of shorts featuring a firework print.

A plaintiff alleging copyright infringement must convince the court his protected work was copied by proving that defendant had access to the protected work. Access is the opportunity to view or to copy plaintiff's work. A plaintiff must also prove that the original and the allegedly infringing work are substantially similar.

There is no doubt in our case that Plaintiff could prove access to its designs, as they were sold to the public in 2011 and 2012. By showing its original designs side by side with some of the Old Navy models, Plaintiff is attempting to convince the court that the designs are substantially similar. The suit was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, which is part of the Eleventh Circuit, where the courts consider that there is a "substantial similarity" between two works if "an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work” (see SunTrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co. at 1266).

This is probably the reason this suit was filed in Georgia, and not in Pennsylvania which is where Plaintiff has its headquarter, and is within the Third Circuit, where substantial similarity must be first assessed by experts before the court may determine “whether a "lay-observer" would believe that the copying was of protectible aspects of the copyrighted work (see Dam Things from Denmark at 562).

There is no need for experts in the Eleventh Circuit, and only the opinion of average lay observers is necessary. The Complaint alleges that the Old Navy models “are so striking that consumers and commentators have remarked upon them, referring to the infringing designs as Lilly Pulitzer “copies”, “dupes”, or “knock offs” and provides as evidence comments posted on Instagram personal blogs, and Poshmark, a site allowing users to sell pieces of their wardrobe, marveling about how similar the Old Navy models are to the original Lilly Pulitzer fabric designs (see here for 30 pages of such evidence.)

As “an average lay observer” is, in the Eleventh Circuit, “an individual who, without any vested interest in the governing issue, is sufficiently informed and alert to identify precisely the differences in the competing designs, yet sufficiently informed and independent to fairly identify and assess the similarities; that is, at a minimum, neither an engaged expert nor an oblivious passerby” (see John Alden Homes, Inc. v. Kangas at 1344), Plaintiff may have found online a trove of evidence in the chatter of consumers, who obliviously know the brand, yet are not fashion experts or professionals. Lilly is not pulling the Web 2.0 punches.

Image of fabrics is courtesy of Flickr user heather under a CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 license

Image of tag is courtesy of Flickr user vintinspiration under a CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 license

 

Of catapults and caterpillars: hubbub over the Hub

Waiting for the Champagne ...

Once upon a time, launches involved ships and smashing bottles of Champagne against their sides as they slid gracefully into the water. Launches nowadays seem to involve mainly websites and online services; the Champagne is then consumed at an appropriate reception and the guests slide off as gracefully as they can manage under the circumstances.  This blogpost brings news of a launch and also information about the UK's Copyright Hub, for which we have been waiting for development for what seems like the time it takes Harper Lee to publish her sequels. The news, embargoed until the very moment that this blogpost went live, reads like this, in relevant part:

New UK copyright system launched by IP Minister Baroness Neville-Rolfe [this is a bit of an overstatement: most of the UK copyright system remains regrettably much the same today as it was yesterday. Never mind ...]

* First public use of The Copyright Hub and Digital Catapult’s ground-breaking technology [this itself is a great British invention: catapults have previously only been used for hurling objects through the air. Ground-breaking is normally done by caterpillars, not catapults]

* Agreement to use new system in Australia announced

* Launch of the public information website copyrightdoneright.org

Intellectual Property Minister Baroness Neville-Rolfe became the first public user of The Copyright Hub and the Digital Catapult’s innovative new copyright technology at an event in London today. Using a single mouse-click, the Minister was able to secure permission to use a copyrighted [we don't normally use this word in the UK, since there is no verb "to copyright": the word "copyright" can happily used an adjective, as in "a copyright image"] image provided by project partner 4Corners Images (www.4cornersimages.com).

The event marked the first time that The Copyright Hub’s technology – a platform developed and supported by the Digital Catapult - has gone live. The technology, which will be extended to other forms of media over the next few months, has been developed to enable creators to give permission for their work to be used both commercially and by members of the public.
...

Richard Hooper, Chairman of The Copyright Hub, commented: 

“This is a proud moment for The Copyright Hub team. The government has supported us since the whole process began with the Hargreaves Report in 2011, and now we are beginning to see a new era for copyright put in place. Given continuing support from industry and government, this could be a world-leading initiative on a par with the creation of the web itself.” 

There are now nearly 100 Copyright Hub applications planned, with ten under active development, including photo/picture library Mary Evans and the British Film Institute (BFI). In addition, i-publishing goes live with its first Hub application today and in the next few weeks Capture will have incorporated Hub services in their application, reaching many more picture libraries.

The international potential of the new technology was confirmed by the news that The Copyright Hub has agreed a new partnership with Australian licensing organisation the Copyright Agency. As part of this agreement, The Copyright Agency will be contributing to The Copyright Hub’s core funding.

The technology is expected to eventually be rolled out in Australia across all of the content licensed by the Copyright Agency – text, images, art, and survey plans. It continues the successful international work of The Copyright Hub, which is also working in the U.S. with the Copyright Clearance Centre and the Motion Picture Association of America and with an increasing number of other public and private partners across Europe and the world.

The Copyright Hub has also announced that it has launched a new website, copyrightdoneright.org to generate support for its activities. It highlights the support already received from over 45 organisations and many individuals, and invites others to get involved by contributing funding, time, Hub Applications and code [it's a lovely, friendly website but is it keeping its teeth well hidden? Key Supporters include Getty Images and Bridgeman Images ...].

It's good to find out what has been happening -- and it's even better to see some constructive efforts being made to facilitate the licensing of copyright rather than its infringement. We shall be watching with interest to see what the Hub can deliver and how greatly the copyright-consuming public takes to it.

Photographer Claims Harley Davidson Used Photograph without Authorization

Lisa Michael, a North Carolina professional photographer, filed a complaint on July 21 against Harley-Davidson and three of its dealers, alleging that their use of one of her photographs in an advertising brochure had not been authorized and thus infringed her copyright. The case is Michael v. Harley-Davidson, Inc. et al, 5:2015cv00346.

In September 2014, Plaintiff took a picture of a man sitting on a Harley-Davidson motorcycle and licensed it to a local Harley Davidson dealer, for limited use only in online advertising. The photographer included a digital watermark on the photograph to indicate that the picture came from her personal website.

Plaintiff later discovered that this photograph had been used as part of an “Iron Elite” advertising campaign, celebrating African-American Harley-Davidson riders. Plaintiff applied to register the copyright with the Copyright Office on July 6 before filing her suit in the Eastern District of North Carolina. The original licensee of the photograph has not been named as defendant to the suit.

Plaintiff claims that Harley-Davidson and several Harley-Davidson dealers are jointly and severally liable for damages, and she is demanding a jury trial.

The complaint alleges that Harley-Davidson created the “Iron Elite” campaign and offered a fabric patch featuring the silhouette of the rider in the original photograph. The silhouette was drawn in black and white over a black background surrounded by orange, using thus the colors of the Harley-Davidson trademark. The”Iron Elite” site explained that the patch had been created as a “special, limited edition” to pay tribute to famous African-American Harley-Davison users, and informed the public that it could be obtained at several Harley Davidson locations, which are the other Defendants to this suit.

Neither the online campaign site, nor the patch, indicated that Plaintiff was the author of the original work used to create the patch. This article states that Plaintiff had posted to her followers on Twitter that “My image chosen to represent HARLEY DAVIDSON USA IRONELITE 2015! © lisamichael.com", but that the tweet was later deleted. I could not verify this information, as Plaintiff’s Twitter account is now private.

The photographer filed a copyright infringement suit, and also claimed that the unauthorized use of her photograph amounts to false designation of origin and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The Complaint states that Plaintiff’s “label,” that is, the digital watermark on the photograph, “identified Plaintiff as the source of that work” and that removing it constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practice and false designation of origin.

This is an attempt to use trademark law to palliate the absence of moral rights in U.S. law. However, the court is likely to consider the patch to be reverse passing off, which is the misrepresentation of someone else’s goods or service as one’s own. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Dastar that the phrase “origin of goods” in Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act “refers to the producer of the tangible goods that are offered for sale, and not the author of any idea, concept, or communication embodied in those goods” and thus closed the door to litigants wishing to use the Lanham Act as a way to protect their right to attribution.

The complaint alleges that the campaign featuring the infringing photograph has been reproduced and distributed on social media by third parties, but, unlike this recent case, Plaintiff did not attempt to sue these social media users for contributory infringement.

[Here is a video of Brigitte Bardot singing Je ne reconnais plus personne en Harley-Davidson, a song written by Serge Gainsbourg.

Image is courtesy of Flickr user lePhotography user under a CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 licence.