Cariou v. Prince (SDNY 2011; Fair Use)

8/3/2019 Cariou v. Prince (SDNY 2011; Fair Use)

1/38

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK------------------------------------X PATRICK CARIOU,

P l a i n t i f f ,

USDCSDNYD O C U M E 1 ' t ~ ELECfRONlCALLYmEDDOC#:DATE FI:=":LS:::::::D:-:......-./.'?"""/y-,/....,../-Ij-.

- aga ins t 08 Civ. 11327 (DAB)MEMORANDUM & ORDER

RICHARD PRINCE, GAGOSIAN GALLERY, INC.,LAWRENCE GAGOSIAN, and RIZZOLIINTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS, INC.

Defendants .------------------------------------xDEBORAH A. BATTS, United S ta t e s D i s t r i c t Judge .

This mat te r i s now before the Court on cross-mot ions fo rsummary judgment. Defendants Richard Prince , Gagosian Gal le ry ,Inc . , and Lawrence Gagosian seek a determina t ion t ha t t h e i r useof P la in t i f f ' s copyrighted photographs was a f a i r use under th er e levan t s ec t ion o f the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 107(1) - (4 ) ,and t ha t P l a i n t i f f ' s claim fo r conspiracy to v io l a t e h is r i gh t sunder the Copyright Act i s barred by law. 1 P l a i n t i f f seekssummary judgment i n h i s favor on the i s sue of l i a b i l i t y fo rcopyright infr ingement .

For reasons de ta i l ed he re in , the Court f inds (1) t ha t

lNamed Defendant Rizzo l i In te rna t iona l Publ ica t ions , Inc .was vo lun ta r i ly dismissed from t h i s ac t ion by s t i pu l a t i on ofdismissa l ente red by the Court on February 5, 2010.

1

I I

Case 1:08-cv-11327-DAB Document 71 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 38

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK------------------------------------XPATRICK CARIOU,

P l a i n t i f f ,- aga ins t -

RICHARD PRINCE, GAGOSIAN GALLERY, INC.,LAWRENCE GAGOSIAN, and RIZZOLIINTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS, INC.

Defendants .------------------------------------x

USDCSDNYD O C U M E 1 ' t ~ELECfRONlCALLYmEDDOC#:DATE FI=-:LB:::::::D:-:.....3 - ~ ' ? " " " / 3-,/"""'/-1-.

08 Civ. 11327 (DAB)MEMORANDUM & ORDER

DEBORAH A. BATTS, United S ta t e s Di s t r i c t Judge .

This mat te r i s now before th e Court on cross-mot ions fo rsummary judgment. Defendants Richard Prince , Gagosian Gal le ry ,Inc . , and Lawrence Gagosian seek a determina t ion t ha t t h e i r useof P la in t i f f ' s copyrighted photographs was a f a i r use under th ere le va nt s ec ti on of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 107(1) - (4 ) ,and t ha t P l a i n t i f f ' s claim fo r conspiracy to v io l a t e h is r i gh t sunder the Copyright Act i s barred by law. 1 P l a i n t i f f seekssummary judgment in h is favor on the i s sue of l i a b i l i t y fo rcopy r igh t i nf ri ng emen t.

For reasons de ta i l ed he re in , the Court f inds (1) t ha t

lNamed Defendant Rizzo l i In te rna t iona l Publ ica t ions , Inc .was vo lun ta r i ly dismissed from t h i s ac t ion by s t i pu l a t i on ofdismissa l ente red by the Court on February 5, 2010.

1


2/38

Defendants ' in f r ing ing use of P l a i n t i f f ' s copyrighted photographswas not f a i r use under th e Copyright Act; and (2) t h a tP l a i n t i f f ' s conspiracy claim i s barred by law. Accordingly ,Defendants ' Motion i s GRANTED in p a r t , and P l a i n t i f f ' s Motion i sGRANTED in i t s e n t i r e ty .

I . BACKGROUNDFami l ia r i ty with the a f f ida v i t s , d ec l a r a t i o n s , depos i t ion

t r a ns c r ip t s , and o t h e r evidence before the Cour t i s assumed, andth e undispu ted f ac t s are s e t fo r th here only b r i e f l y .

P l a i n t i f f Pat r ick Cariou ( "P l a i n t i f f " o r "Cariou") i s aprofe s s iona l pho tographer . PC Tr. 45-46, 279-80 . 2 Cariou sp en tt ime with Ras ta fa r i ans in Jamaica over the course o f some s ixyea rs , gaining t h e i r t r u s t and t ak ing t h e i r p o r t r a i t s . PC Tr. 3448. In 2000, Cariou publ i shed a book o f photographs which weretaken during h is t ime in Jamaica. Brooks Decl . Ex. L. Th e book,t i t l ed Yes, Rasta and re l ea sed by PowerHouse Books ("Yes,Ras t a" ) , contained both p o r t r a i t s o f Ras ta fa r i an ind iv idua l s (andothers) in Jamaica and landscape photos taken by Cariou in

2"PC. Tr . , " used he re in , r e f e r s to th e t r a ns c r ip t o f Pat r ickCariou ' s depos i t ion t es t imony . "RP Tr . , " "CC T r . , " "LG Tr." and"AM Tr." r e f e r to th e depos i t ion t r a ns c r ip t s o f Richard Pr ince ,Chr i s t i ane Cel Ie , Lawrence Gagosian, and Alison McDonald,r espec t ive ly . Simi la r ly , "RP. Aff ." r e f e r s to th e a f f ida v i tf i l e d by Richard Pr i n ce .

2


Defendants ' in f r ing ing use of P l a i n t i f f ' s copyrighted photographswas no t f a i r use under the Copyright Act; and (2) t ha tP l a i n t i f f ' s conspiracy cla im i s barred by law. Accordingly ,Defendants ' Motion i s GRANTED in p ar t , and P la in t i f f ' s Motion i sGRANTED in i t s en t i r e t y .

I . BACKGROUNDFami l i a r i t y with the a f f i d av i t s , dec l a r a t i on s , depos i t ion

t r ansc r ip t s , and o ther evidence before the Court i s assumed, andthe undisputed f ac t s are s e t fo r th here only b r i e f l y .

P l a i n t i f f Pat r ick Cariou ( "Pla in t i f f " o r "Car iou") i s aprofes s iona l photographer . PC Tr. 45-46, 279-80. 2 Cariou spen tt ime with Ras ta fa r i ans in Jamaica over th e course of some s ixyea rs , gain ing t h e i r t r u s t and t ak ing t h e i r po r t r a i t s . PC Tr. 34-48. In 2000, Cariou publ i shed a book o f photographs which weretak en d urin g h is t ime in Jamaica. Brooks Decl . Ex. L. The book,t i t l ed Yes, Rasta and r e leased by PowerHouse Books ("Yes,Rasta") , c on ta in ed b o th po r t r a i t s of Ras ta fa r ia n i nd i vi dua ls (andothers ) in Jamaica and l an ds ca pe p ho to s taken by Cariou in

2"PC. Tr . , " used he re in , re f e rs to the t r ansc r ip t o f Pat r ickC a rio u 's d ep o si ti on t e s t imony. "RP Tr . , " "CC Tr . , " "LG Tr." and"AM Tr." r e f e r to the depos i t ion t r ansc r ip t s of Richard Pr ince ,Chr i s t i ane Cel Ie , Lawrence Gagosian, and Alison McDonald,r espec t ive ly . S imi la r ly , "RP. Aff . " re fe r s to th e a f f i d av i tf i l ed by Richard Prince .

2


3/38

Jamaica. 3 Id .Cariou t e s t i f i e d a t l eng th about th e c r ea t i v e choices he

made in determining which equipment to use in t ak ing h is photos ,the s taging cho ices he made when composing and t ak ing i nd iv idua lphotos , and th e t echn iques and processes he used (and d i r ec t edothe rs to use) when developing th e photos . PC Tr. 4966, 133-34, 137-38, 143-44, 152, 169. Cariou a lso t e s t i f i e d t h a the was heavi ly invo lved in th e l ayout , ed i t ing , and pr in t ing ofth e Yes, Rasta book. Id . ; PC Tr. a t 180-208. According to th ecolophon page included in Yes, Ras ta , Cariou i s th e so lecopyright holder in th e images t h a t appear in Yes, Ras ta . BrooksDecl . Ex. L.

Defendant Richard Prince ("Prince") i s a well-known"appropr i a t ion a r t i s t " who has shown a t numerous museums ando th e r i n s t i t u t i o n s , inc lud ing a so lo show a t th e GuggenheimMuseum in New York Ci ty . RP Aff . 3, 5. Defendant GagosianGal le ry , Inc . ( the "Gal lery") i s an a r t dea le r and g a l l e ry whichrep re sen t s Prince and markets the artworks he crea tes . LG T r. 2225; RP T r. 270, 294. Defendant Lawrence Gagosian ("Gagosian";c o l l e c t i v e l y with th e Gal lery , the "Gagosian Defendants") i s the

3The p o r t r a i t s and landscape photographs Cariou publ i shed inYes, Rasta are c o l l e c t i v e l y re fe r red t o he re in as th e "Photos ,""Car iou ' s Photos ," o r the "Yes, Rasta Photos."

3


Jamaica. 3 Id .Cariou t e s t i f i ed a t l eng th about th e crea t ive cho ices he

made in determining whi ch equ ipment to use in t ak ing h is photos ,th e s t ag ing choices he made when compo sin g and t ak ing ind iv idua lphotos, and the t echn iques and processes he used (and d i r ec t edothe rs to use) when developing th e photos. See ~ PC Tr. 49-66, 133-34, 1 37 -3 8, 1 43 -4 4, 152, 169. Cariou a lso t e s t i f i e d t h a the was heavi ly invo lved in th e l ayou t , ed i t i ng , and p r i n t i ng o fthe Yes, Rasta book. I d . ; PC Tr. a t 180 -2 08 . Acc or din g to thecolophon page included in Yes, Ras ta , Cariou i s th e so lecopyr ig ht h o ld e r in th e images t ha t appear in Yes, Ras ta . BrooksDecl . Ex. L.

Defendant Richard Prince ("Prince") i s a well-known"appropr i a t ion a r t i s t " who has shown a t numerous museums ando the r i n s t i t u t i on s , inc lud ing a so lo show a t the GuggenheimMuseum in New York City . RP Aff . ~ 3, 5. De fendan t Gago si anG alle ry , Inc . (the "Gal le ry" ) i s an a r t dea l e r and ga l l e ry whichrep re sen t s Prince and markets th e artworks he c rea t e s . LG Tr. 22-25; RP Tr. 270, 294. Defendant Lawrence Gagos ia n ( "Gago si an ";co l l e c t i v e ly with the G alle ry , the "Gagosian Defendants") i s the

3The po r t r a i t s and l and sc ap e pho togr aphs Cariou publ i shed inYes, Rasta a re co l l e c t i ve ly re fe r red to he re in as th e "Photos ,""Car iou ' s Photos ," o r the "Yes, Ras ta Photos."

3


4/38

Pres ident , founder , and owner o f the Gagosian Gal le ry , Inc . LGTr. a t 16. 4

In o r about December 2007 through February 2008, Princeshowed artwork a t the Eden Rock ho te l in S t. Bar t s . See RP Tr. a t187-88 . Among the works shown was a col lage en t i t l ed Canal Zone(2007), which cons i s t ed o f 35 photographs to rn from Yes, Rastaand a t tached to a wooden backer board . See RP Decl . Compo Ex. A.a t 20-24; see a lso RP Tr. a t 179-80 . Pr ince pa in ted over somepor t ions of the 35 photographs , and used only por t ions of some ofthe photos , whi le othe rs were used in t h e i r e n t i r e ty o r near lyso . See genera l ly RP Decl . Compo Ex. A a t 20-24. Though CanalZone (2007) was no t sold , Prince so ld o the r artworks a t t ha t showthrough Gagosian. RP Tr. 187-88 , 197-98. Por t ions o f Canal Zone(2007) were reproduced in a magazine a r t i c l e about P r in ce ' s CanalZone show a t the Gagosian Gal le ry . RP T r. a t 198-201. Princein tended t ha t Canal Zone (2007) serve as an in t roduc t ion to th echa rac te r s he in tended to use in a screenp lay and in a plannedse r i e s of ar tworks , a lso to be en t i t l ed Canal Zone. RP Aff. 48.

Prince u l t imate ly completed 29 pa in t ings in h is contempla tedCanal Zone s e r i e s , 28 of which included images t aken from Yes,

4Gagosian t e s t i f i e d t h a t he "may have given" "a smal l piece"of the Gal le ry to h is s i s t e r . LG T r. a t 17.

4

I I


Pres iden t , founder , and owner of the Gagosian G alle ry , Inc . LGTr. a t 16. 4

In o r about December 2007 th ro ug h F eb ru ar y 2008, Princeshowed artwork a t the Eden Rock ho te l in S t . Bar t s . See RP Tr. a t187-88 . Among th e works shown was a co l l age en t i t l ed Canal Zone(2007), which cons i s ted o f 35 photographs to rn from Yes, Rastaand a t tac he d to a wooden b ac ke r b oard . See RP Decl . Compo Ex. A.a t 20-24; see also RP Tr. a t 179-80 . Pr ince pa in ted over somepor t ions of the 35 photographs , and used only por t ions of some o fthe photos , while o ther s were used in t h e i r en t i r e ty o r near lyso . See genera l ly RP Decl . Compo Ex. A a t 20-24. Though CanalZone (2007) was not so ld , Prince so ld o ther artworks a t t h a t showthrough Gagosian. RP Tr. 187-88 , 197-98 . Port ions of Canal Zone(2007) were reproduced in a magazine a r t i c l e about Pr ince ' s CanalZone show a t the Gagosian Gal le ry . RP Tr. a t 198-201 . Princeintended t h a t Canal Zone (2007) serve as an in t roduc t ion to thecharac te r s he in tended to use in a screenp lay and in a plannedse r ie s of ar tw orks , a lso to be en t i t l ed Canal Zone. RP Aff . 48.

Prince u l t ima te ly completed 29 pa in t ings in h is contemplatedCanal Zone s e r i e s , 28 of which included images taken from Yes,

4Gagosian t e s t i f i e d t ha t he "may have given" "a small piece"of the Gal le ry to h is s i s t e r . LG Tr. a t 17.

4

LL


5/38

Rasta . 5 See RP Decl . Compo Ex. A. Some of th e pa in t ings , l i ke"Graduat ion (2008)" and "Canal Zone (2008) ," co n s i s t almoste n t i r e ly of images taken from Yes, Rasta , a l b e i t col laged,en larged , cropped, t i n t e d , and /or over-pa in ted , while o ther s ,l i ke " l I e de France (2008)" use por t ions of Yes, Rasta Photos ascol lage elements and also inc lude appropr ia ted photos from o th e rsources and more su b s t a n t i a l o r i g i n a l pa in t ing . 6 See RP Decl .Compo Ex. A (comparing Prince pa in t ings with Cariou Photos used

t h e re i n ) ; compare Brooks Decl . Ex. M (Canal Zone ca ta log) withBrooks Decl . Ex. L (Yes, Ras ta book). In t o t a l , Prince admitsusing a t l e a s t 41 Photos from Yes, Rasta as e lements o f CanalZone Paint ings . RP Decl . 24.

The Gal le ry showed 22 of the 29 Canal Zone pa in t ings a t oneof i t s Manhattan loca t ions from November 8, 2008 to December 20,2008. Brooks Decl . Ex. M a t 1; LG T r. a t 25, 50; RP Aff . a t Ex.A. Th e Gal le ry also publ i shed and sold an exh ib i t ion ca ta logfrom t ha t show, s imi la r ly en t i t l ed Canal Zone, which contained

5The a l leged ly in f r ing ing works in th e Canal Zone s e r i e s ,t oge the r with Canal Zone (2007), are re fe r red to col lec t ive lyherein as the ~ P a i n t i n g s , " "Pr ince ' s Pain t ings , " o r the "CanalZone Pain t ings . "

GIn reaching its determina t ion he re in , th e Court hasexamined fu l ly th e exh ib i t s and reproduct ions provided by th eP a r t i e s and has compared th e 29 Canal Zone pa in t ings with th eYes, Rasta Photos. The Court sees no need to descr ibe each workin grea t d e t a i l .

5


Rasta . 5 See RP Decl . Compo Ex. A. Some of th e pa in t ings , l i ke"Graduat ion (2008)" and "Canal Zone (2008) ," cons i s t almosten t i r e ly of images taken from Yes, Rasta , a l be i t col laged,en larged , cropped, t i n t ed , and /or over-pa in ted , while o ther s ,l i ke " l I e de France (2008)" use por t ions of Yes, Rasta Photos ascol lage elements and also inc lude appropr ia ted photos from o the rsources and more s u bs ta n tia l o rig in a l pa in t ing . 6 See RP Decl .Compo Ex. A (comparing Prince pa in t ings with Cariou Photos used

t h e re i n ) ; compare Brooks Decl . Ex. M (Canal Zone ca ta log) withBrooks Decl . Ex. L (Yes, Rasta book). In t o t a l , Prince admitsusing a t l e a s t 41 Photos from Yes, Rasta as elem ents o f CanalZone Pain t ings . RP Decl . 24.

The Gal le ry showed 22 o f the 29 Canal Zone pa in t ings a t oneof i t s Manhattan loca t ions from November 8, 2008 to December 20,2008. Brooks Decl . Ex. M a t 1; LG Tr. a t 25, 50; RP Aff . a t Ex.A. The Gal le ry also publ i shed and sold an exh ib i t ion ca ta logfrom t ha t show, s imi la r ly en t i t l ed Canal Zone, which contained

5The a ll eg e dl y i n fr in g in g works in th e Canal Zone s e r i e s ,t oge the r with Canal Zone (2007), are re fe r red to col lec t ive lyherein as the "Pa in t ings , " "Pr ince ' s P ain tin gs ," o r the "CanalZone Pa in t ings . n

6In reaching its determina t ion he re in , the Court hasexamined fu l ly th e exh ib i t s and reproduct ions provided by th ePa r t i e s and has compared th e 29 Canal Zone pa in t ings with th eYes, Rasta Photos. The Court sees no need to descr ibe each workin grea t de t a i l .

5


6/38

reproduct ions of many of the Canal Zone Paint ings ( including somePaint ings which were not shown a t the Gallery) and photographs o fYes, Rasta Photos in Pr ince ' s s tud io . See Brooks Decl . Ex. M(Canal Zone exh ib i t ion ca ta log) . The Gagosian employee who wasthe Managing Edi to r of the ca ta log t e s t i f i e d t ha t she neverinquired as to th e source o f th e Rastafar ian photographscontained the re in . AC Tr. a t 42.

Other than by pr iva te sa l e to ind iv idua l s Cariou knew andl i k ed , the Photos have never been so ld or l i censed fo r use o therthan in the Yes, Rasta book. PC Tr. 86-94. However, Cariout e s t i f i e d t h a t he was negot ia t ing with g a l l e ry owner Chr i s t i aneCelIe ( "Cel Ie") , who planned to show and s e l l pr in t s of the Yes,Rasta Photos a t h er Manhattan ga l l e ry , p r i o r to the Canal Zoneshow's opening. PC Tr. a t 96-98; see CC Tr. 39-40, 42-44. Carioualso t e s t i f i e d t h a t he in tended in the fu ture to i s sue a r t i s t s 'edi t ions of the Photos , which would be of fe red fo r sa le toc o l l e c to r s . PC Tr. 92-94; 97-98.

CelIe or ig ina l ly planned to exh ib i t between 30 and 40 of thePhotos a t her g a l l e ry , with mul t ip l e p r i n t s of each to be sold a tp r i ce s ranging from $3,000.00 to $20,000.00, depending on s i z e .CC Tr. a t 40-42, 46, 66-68, 127-28, 153-55. She a l so planned tohave Yes, Rasta rep r in ted fo r a book s igning to be held dur ingth e show a t her g a l l e ry . CC T r. a t 87-88, 155-56. However, when

6


reproduct ions of many of the Canal Zone Pa in t ings ( including somePa in t ings which were not shown a t th e Gallery) and photographs ofYes, Rasta Photos in Pr ince ' s s tud io . See Brooks Decl . Ex. M(Canal Zone exh ib i t i on ca ta log) . The Gagosian employee who wasthe Managing Edi to r o f the ca ta log t e s t i f i e d t ha t she neverinquired as to th e source o f the Ras ta fa r ian photographscon ta ined t h e r e in . AC Tr. a t 42.

Other than by p r iv a te sa le to ind iv idua l s Cariou knew andl i k ed , th e Photos have never been so ld o r l icen sed fo r use o therthan in the Yes, Rasta book. PC Tr. 86-94. However, Cariout e s t i f i e d t h a t he was nego t ia t ing with ga l l e ry owner Chr i s t i aneCelIe ("Cel Ie") , who planned to show and s e l l pr in t s of the Yes,Rasta Photos a t her Manhattan ga l l e ry , p r i o r to th e Canal Zoneshow's opening. PC Tr. a t 96-98; see CC Tr. 39-40 , 42-44. Carioualso t e s t i f i e d t h a t he in tended in th e fu tu re to i s sue a r t i s t s 'ed i t ions of the Photos , which would be o f f e r ed fo r sa le toco l l e c to r s . PC Tr. 92-94; 97-98.

CelIe or ig ina l ly planned to exh ib i t between 30 and 40 o f thePhotos a t her ga l l e ry , with mul t ip l e pr in t s of each to be so ld a tpr ices ranging from $3,000.00 to $20,000.00 , depending on s i z e .CC Tr. a t 40-42, 46, 66-68, 127 -2 8, 1 53 -5 5. She a l so planned tohave Yes, Rasta rep r in ted fo r a book s igning to be held dur ingth e show a t her ga l l e ry . CC Tr. a t 87-88, 1 55-5 6. However, when

6
http:///reader/full/3,000.00http:///reader/full/20,000.00http:///reader/full/3,000.00http:///reader/full/20,000.00http:///reader/full/3,000.00http:///reader/full/20,000.00


7/38

CelIe became aware of the Canal Zone exh ib i t ion a t the GagosianGal le ry , she cance l led the show she and Cariou had discussed. PCTr. a t 98; CC T r. 63-64, 71. CelIe t e s t i f i e d t h a t she decided tocance l the show because she d id not want to seem to bec a p i t a l i z i n g on Pr ince ' s success and n o to r i e ty , CC T r. a t 89,105-06, and because she d id not want to exh ib i t work which hadbeen "done al ready" a t another ga l l e ry , CC Tr. 89, 91, 105.

I I . DISCUSSIONA. Summary Judgment

A d i s t r i c t cour t should gran t summary judgment when the re i s"no genuine i s sue as to any mate r i a l f a c t , " and th e moving par tyi s en t i t l ed to judgment as a mat te r o f law. Fed. R. Civ. P.56{c) ; see a lso Hermes Int'l v . Lederer de Par i s Fi f th Ave.,Inc . , 219 F.3d 104, 107 (2d Cir . 2000) . Genuine i s sues o fma te r i a l f ac t cannot be c rea t ed by mere conclusory a l l ega t ions ;summary judgment i s appropr ia te only when, " a f t e r drawing a l lreasonable infe rences in favor of a non-movant, no reasonablet r i e r of f a c t cou ld f ind in favor o f t ha t pa r ty . " Heuble in v.Uni ted S ta t e s , 996 F.2d 1455, 1461 (2d C i r . 1993) {c i t ingMatsush i ta E lec . Indus t r . Co. v. Zeni th Radio Corp . , 47 5 U.S.574, 587-88 (1986 .

In assess ing when summary judgment should be granted , " the re

7


CelIe became aware of the Canal Zone exh ib i t ion a t th e GagosianGal le ry , she cance l led th e show she and Cariou had discussed . PCTr. a t 98; CC Tr. 63-64, 71. CelIe t e s t i f i e d t ha t she decided tocance l th e show because she d id not want to seem to becapi ta l i z ing on Pr ince ' s success and no to r i e ty , CC Tr. a t 89,105-06, and because she d id no t want to exh ib i t work which hadbeen "done a l ready" a t another ga l l e ry , CC Tr. 89, 91, 105.

I I . DISCUSSIONA. Summary Judgment

A d i s t r i c t cour t should g ran t summary judgment when the re i s"no genuine i s sue as to any mater ia l f a c t , " and th e moving par tyi s en t i t l ed to judgment as a mat te r of law . Fed. R. Civ. P.56{c); see also Hermes Int'l v. Lederer de Par i s Fi f th Ave. ,Inc . , 219 F.3d 104, 107 (2d Cir . 2000). Genuine i s sues o fmater ia l fac t cannot be crea ted by mere conclusory a l l ega t ions ;summary judgment i s appropr ia te only when, "a f t e r drawing a l lreasonable infe rences in favor o f a non-movant , no reasonablet r i e r of f a c t could f ind in favor of th at p ar ty ." Heu ble in v .Uni ted Sta tes , 996 F.2d 1455, 1461 (2d Cir . 1993) (c i t ingMatsushi ta Elec . Indus t r . Co. v. Zeni th Radio Corp. , 475 U.S.574, 587-88 (1986 .

In a sse ss in g when summary judgment should be granted , " the re7


8/38

must be more than a ' s c i n t i l l a of ev idence ' in the non-movant 'sfavor ; t he re must be evidence upon which a f a c t - f i n d e r couldreasonab ly f ind fo r the non-movant." Id . (c i t ing Anderson v .Liber ty Lobby, Inc . , 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986 . While a cour tmust always "resolv[e ] ambigui t i es and draw [ ] reasonab leinfe rences aga ins t the moving par ty , " Knight v. U.S. Fire Ins .Co. , 804 F.2d 9 , 1 1 (2d Cir . 1986) ( c i t ing Anderson, 477 U.S. a t252), the non-movant may not re ly upon "mere specu la t ion o r

conjec ture as to the t rue na ture of the f ac t s to overcome amotion fo r summary judgment." Id . a t 12. Ins t ead , when th e movingpar ty has documented pa r t i c u l a r f ac t s in the record , " theopposing par ty must s e t fo r th spec i f i c f ac t s showing t h a t t he rei s a genuine i s sue fo r t r i a l . " Will iams v . Smith, 781 F.2d 319,323 (2d Cir . 1986) (quota t ion omi t t ed ) . Es t ab l i sh ing such f ac t srequ i re s going beyond the a l lega t ions of the pl ead i ngs , as themoment has ar r ived " to pu t up o r shu t up ." Weinstock v. ColumbiaUniv. , 224 F.3d 33, 41 (2d Cir . 2000) ( c i t a t i on omit ted) .Unsupported a l l ega t ions in the p leadings thus cannot c r ea t e amate r i a l i s sue of f a c t . Id .

A cour t faced with cross-mot ions fo r summary judgment needno t "gran t judgment as a mat te r of law fo r one s ide or theo th e r , " bu t " 'mus t eva lua te each p a r t y ' s motion on i t s ownmer i t s , t ak ing care in each ins tance to draw a l l reasonab le

8


must be more than a ' s c i n t i l l a o f ev id en ce ' in the non-movant 'sfavor ; the re must be evidence upon which a f a c t - f i nde r couldreasonably f ind fo r the non-movant." Id . (c i t ing Anderson v .Liber ty Lobby, Inc . , 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986 . While a cour tmust always "resolv[e ] ambigui t i es and draw [ ] reasonableinfe rences aga ins t th e moving par ty , " Knight v. U.S. F ire In s .Co., 804 F.2d 9, 11 (2d Cir . 1986) (c i t ing Anderson, 477 U.S. a t252) , the non-movant may not re ly upon "mere specu la t ion o rconjec ture as to th e t rue na ture of the fac t s to overcome amotion fo r summary judgment ." Id . a t 12. Ins tead , when the movingpar ty has documented pa r t i cu l a r fac ts in th e record , " theopposing par ty must s e t fo r th s pe cif ic fa cts showing t ha t the rei s a genuine is sue fo r t r i a l . " Will iams v. Smith, 781 F.2d 319,323 (2d Cir . 1986) (quota t ion omi t t ed ) . Establ ish ing such f ac t srequ i re s going beyond the a l l ega t i on s o f the p lead ings, as themoment has a rr iv ed " to put up o r shu t up ." Weinstock v. ColumbiaUniv. , 224 F.3d 33, 41 (2d Cir . 2000) ( c i t a t i on omit ted) .Unsupported a l l ega t ions in th e p lead ings thus cannot c rea te amate r i a l i s sue of f a c t . Id .

A cour t faced with cross-motions fo r summary judgment neednot "grant judgment as a mat te r of law fo r one s ide o r theo the r , " bu t " 'must eva lua te each pa r t y ' s motion on i t s ownmer i t s , t ak ing care in each i n s t ance to draw a l l reasonable

8


9/38

i n fe rences aga ins t th e par ty whose motion i s undercons ide ra t ion . ' " Heuble in , Inc . v. uni t ed Sta tes , 996 F.2d 1455,1461 (2d Cir . 1993) (guot ing Schwabenbauer v. Bd. of Educ. ofOlean, 667 F.2d 305, 313-14 (2d Cir . 1981)}.

To p r ev a i l on a copyright in f r ingement cla im, tw o elementsmust be proven: (1) ownership o f a va l id copyr igh t , and (2 )copying o f co n s t i t u en t e lements o f th e work t h a t are o r i g i n a l .See Harper & Row, 471 u .S . a t 548; Fei s t Pub l ' n s . , In c . v. RuralTel . Servo Co. , In c . , 499 US a t 348, 363 (1991) (holding t h a ta lphabe t ica l arrangement o f names in t e lephone d i r ec to r y was no tpro tec t ed by copyr igh t , s ince a lphabe t ica l arrangement u is no tonly unor ig ina l , it i s pra c t i c a l l y i ne v i t a b l e . " ) . To beUorig ina l , " a copyr igh ted work must have been independen t lyc rea ted by the au thor and must possess Uat l e a s t some minimaldegree o f c rea t i v i t y , " al though Uthe r e qu i s i t e l ev e l ofc re a t iv i t y i s extremely low; even a s l i g h t amount w i l l su f f i c e . "Id . a t 345. uThe vas t major i ty of works make the grade qu i tee a s i l y , as they possess some c r ea t i v e spark , 'no mat te r howcrude , humble o r obvious ' it might be . " Id . ( c i t a t i o n omi t t ed) .

U[T]he a pp l i c a b i l i t y o f [ the f a i r use defense to copyr igh tinfr ingement] presen t s mixed ques t ions o f law and f a c t , " Aris taRecords, LLC v . Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir . 2010) ( c i t ing Harper

9


i n fe rences aga ins t the par ty whose motion i s undercons ide ra t ion . ' " Heuble in , Inc . v. uni t ed Sta t e s , 996 F.2d 1455,1461 (2d Cir . 1993) (guoting Schwabenbauer v. Ed. of Educ. o fOlean, 667 F.2d 305, 313-14 (2d Cir . 1981)}.

To p reva i l on a copyright in f r ingement c la im, two elementsmust be proven: (1 ) ownership o f a va l id copyr igh t , and (2)copying of cons t i t u en t e lements of the work t ha t are o r i g i na l .See Harper & Row, 471 u .s . a t 548; F e is t P u bl 'n s. , Inc . v. RuralTel . Servo Co. , Inc . , 499 US a t 348, 363 (1991) (holding t h a ta lphabe t ica l arrangement o f names in t e lephone d i r ec to ry was no tpro tec ted by copyr igh t , s ince a lphabe t ica l arrangement u is no tonly unor ig ina l , it i s p r a ct ic a ll y i n ev i ta b le ." ) . To beUorig ina l , " a copyrighted work must have been independen t lyc rea ted by the au thor and must possess Uat l e a s t some minimaldegree of c rea t i v i t y , " al though Uthe r equ i s i t e l eve l ofc r e a t i v i t y i s extremely low; even a s l i gh t amount w i l l s uf fic e."Id . a t 345. uThe vas t major i ty of works make th e grade qu i teea s i l y , as they possess some c r ea t i ve spark , 'no mat te r howcrude , humble o r obv ious ' it might be ." Id . (c i ta t ion omi t t ed) .

U[T]he app l i c ab i l i t y o f [ the f a i r use d efe nse to copyrightinfr ingement] presen t s mixed ques t ions of law and f a c t , " Aris taRecords , LLC v . Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir . 2010) (c i t ing Harper

9


10/38

& Row Pubs. , Inc . v. Nation En te r s . , 471 U.S. 539, 560 (1985}) ,but may never the less be determined on a motion fo r summaryjudgment where the record con ta ins fac t s s u f f i c i e n t to eva lua teeach of the s ta tu tory fac to rs , Harper & Row a t 560.

B. Copyright in th e PhotosCariou ' s ownership o f a va l id copyright in the Photos i s

undisputed. However, Defendants a s s e r t t ha t Car iou ' s Photos a remere compila t ions o f fac t s concerning Rasta fa r ians and theJamaican landscape, ar ranged with minimum c rea t i v i t y i n a mannert yp ica l of t h e i r genre , and t h a t th e Photos a re the re fo re notpro tec tab le as a mat te r of law, desp i te P l a i n t i f f ' s extens ivetes t imony about the crea t ive choices he made in t ak ing,process ing , developing , and se lec t ing them.7

Unfor tuna te ly fo r Defendants , it has been a mat te r o fse t t l ed law fo r wel l over one hundred years t ha t crea t ivephotographs a re worthy o f copyright pro tec t ion even when theydep ic t r e a l people and na tu ra l environments . S e e , ~ , Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 60 {1884}

7Defendant 's arguments concerning whether ideas can bepro tec ted by copyright are i r r e l e va n t to t h i s case : P l a i n t i f fseeks recourse fo r Pr ince ' s use o f h is o r i g i n a l c rea t ive works,not fo r any use of o r in f r ingement on the ideas they por t r ay .

10


& Row Pubs . , Inc . v . Nat ion En te r s . , 471 U.S. 539, 560 (1985}),bu t may neve r the l e ss be determined on a motion fo r summaryjudgment where the reco rd con ta in s f ac t s s u f f i c i e n t to eva lua t eeach o f the s t a t u t o ry f ac to r s , Harper & Row a t 560.

B. Copyr igh t in th e PhotosCar iou ' s ownership o f a va l id copy r igh t i n th e Photos i s

undispu ted . However, Defendants a s s e r t t h a t Car iou ' s Photos a remere compi la t ions o f f ac t s concerning Ras ta fa r i ans and th eJamaican la nd sc ap e, a rr an ge d wi th minimum c re a t iv i ty in a mannert yp i ca l o f t h e i r genre , and t h a t th e Photos a re th ere fo re no tp ro t e c t ab l e as a mat t e r o f law, de sp i t e P l a i n t i f f ' s ex tens ivetes t imony abou t th e c r ea t i ve cho ices he made in t ak ing ,

p rocess ing , deve lop ing , and s e l ec t i ng them.7

Unfor tunate ly fo r Defendants , it has been a mat t e r o fs e t t l ed law fo r wel l over one hundred years t h a t c r ea t i vephotographs a re worthy o f copy r igh t p ro t ec t i on even when theydep i c t r e a l people and na tu r a l envi ronments . S e e , ~ ,Burrow-Giles Li thograph ic Co. v . Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 60 (1884)

7Defendant ' s arguments concerning whether i d eas can bepro tec t ed by copy r igh t a re i r r e l e v an t to t h i s case : P l a i n t i f fseeks r ecou rse fo r P rin ce 'S use o f h is o r i g i na l c r ea t i ve works,no t fo r any use o f o r in f r ingement on th e ideas they po r t r ay .

10


11/38

(photographic p o r t r a i t of Oscar Wilde was or ig ina l c rea t ive work,s ince photographer posed th e sub jec t , s e lec ted h is c lo th ing ,background, l i g h t and shade, and "suggest[ed] and evok[ed] thedes i red expressionf l) i Rogers v . Koons, 960 F.2d 301, 307 (2d Cir .1992) {"Elements o f or i g i na l i t y in a photograph may inc ludeposing th e sub jec t s , l i gh t ing , angle , se lec t ion o f fi lm andcamera, evoking the des i red express ion , and a lmost any o thervar i an t involved."} , c e r t . denied, 506 U.S. 934 (1992); Mannion

v. Coors Brewing Co. , 377 F. Supp. 2d 444,450 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)("Almost any photograph 'may claim th e necessary or i g i na l i t y tosuppor t a copyr ight . ' f l ) (c i ta t ion omit ted) ; Eastern Am. TrioProds . , Inc . v. Tang Elec . Corp. , 97 F. Supp. 2d 395, 417(S.D.N.Y. 2000) (photographs of "common i n d u s t r i a l i tems" were

pro tec tab le ) i Monster Comm.'s, Inc . v. Turner Broad. Sys. In c . ,935 F. Supp. 490, 494 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ("photographic images o fac tua l people , places and events may be as crea t ive and deservingof pro tec t ion as pure ly f anc i fu l crea t ions" ) .

Accordingly , Car iou ' s Photos a re worthy of copyr igh tpro tec t ion .

C. F a i r UseFrom the in fancy of copyr igh t pro tec t ion , some oppor tuni ty

11


(photographic po r t r a i t of Oscar Wilde was o r i g i na l c r ea t i ve work,s ince photographer posed th e su bje ct , s ele cte d h is c lo th ing ,background, l i gh t and shade, and "sugges t [ed] and evok[ed] thedes i red express ionH) ; Rogers v . Koons, 960 F.2d 301, 307 (2d Cir .1992) ("Elements o f or ig ina l i t y in a photograph may inc ludeposing the sub jec t s , l i gh t ing , angle , se lec t ion o f fi lm andcamera, evoking th e d es ired express ion , and a lmost any o therva r i an t involved. H) , ce r t . den ied , 506 U.S. 934 (1992); Mannion

v . Coors Brewing Co. , 377 F. Supp. 2d 444,450 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)("Almost any photograph 'may cla im th e necessary o r i g i na l i t y tosuppor t a copyr igh t . 'H) ( c i t a t i on omit ted) ; Eastern Am. TrioProds . , Inc . v . Tang Elec. Corp. , 97 F. Supp. 2d 395, 417(S.D.N.Y. 2000) (photographs of "common i ndus t r i a l i tems" werep ro t ec t ab l e ) ; Monster Comm.'s, Inc . v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc . ,935 F. Supp. 490, 494 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ("photographic images o fac tua l people , places and events may be as crea t ive and deserv ingo f p ro t ec t i on as pure ly f anc i f u l c rea t i on s" ) .

Accordingly , Car iou ' s Photos a re worthy o f copyr igh tp ro t ec t i on .

C. Fa i r UseFrom th e in fancy of copyr igh t pro tec t ion , some oppor tun i ty

11


12/38

fo r f a i r use of copyr ighted mate r ia l s has been thought necessa ryto f u l f i l l copyr igh t ' s very purpose, " [ t ]o promote the Progressof Science and use fu l Ar ts.... " Campbell v. Acuff -Rose Music,Inc . , 510 U.S. 569, 575 (1994) (quoting U.S. Const . , Art . I , 8,c l . 8) . At the Cons t i tu t iona l l e ve l , while the "Copyr ight Clauseand the F i r s t Amendment [are] i n t u i t i v e l y in c o n f l i c t , [they]were dra f ted to work together to prevent censorsh ip" such t ha t"the balance between the F i r s t Amendment and copyr igh t i sprese rved , in p a r t , by t he i dea / expres s ion dichotomy and th edoctr ine of f a i r use . " Sun t rus t Bank, 268 F.3d a t 1263 (c i t i ngEldred v . Reno, 239 F.3d 372, 375 (D.C. Ci r . 2001) (quot ingHarper & Row, 471 U.S. a t 5 6 0 .

"Copyr ight law thus must address the i nev i t ab le t ens ionbetween the proper ty r i gh t s it es t ab l i shes in c rea t ive works,which must be pro tec ted up to a po in t , and the a b i l i t y o fauthors , a r t i s t s , and th e r e s t of us to express them- o rourse lves by r e fe rence to th e works of o t h e r s , which must bepro tec ted up to a po i n t . The fa i r -use doctr ine mediates betweenthe two se t s o f i n t e r e s t s , determining where each s e t o f

i n t e re s t s ceases to c on t ro l . " Blanch v . Koons, 467 F.3d 244, 250(2d ei re 2006); see a l so Warner Bros. Enter ta inment I nc . , V . RDRBooks, 575 F.Supp.2d 513,540 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) {"At s take in t h i scase a re the incen t ive to c rea t e o r ig ina l works which copyr ight

12


fo r f a i r use of copyr ighted mate r ia l s has been thought necessa ryto f u l f i l l copyr igh t ' s very purpose, " [ t ]o promote the Progressof Science and use fu l Ar ts ... . n Campbell v. Acuff -Rose Music,Inc . , 510 U.S. 569, 575 (1994) (quoting U.S. Const . , Art . I , 8,c l . 8 ) . At the Cons t i tu t iona l l eve l , while the "Copyr ight Clauseand the F i r s t Amendment [are] i n t u i t i v e l y in con f l i c t , [they]were d ra f ted to work to ge th er to prevent censorsh ip" such t ha t"the balance between the F i r s t Amendment and copyr igh t i sprese rved , in pa r t , by t he i de a /e x pr es si on dichotomy and th edoctr ine of f a i r use . " Sun t rus t Bank, 268 F.3d a t 1263 (c i t i ngE ldred v. Reno, 239 F.3d 372, 375 (D.C. Ci r . 2001) (quot ingHarper & Row, 471 U.S. a t 5 6 0 .

"Copyr ight law thus must address the i nev i t ab le t ens ionbetween the proper ty r i gh t s it es t ab l i shes in c rea t ive works,whic h must be pro tec ted up to a po in t , and the ab i l i t y o fauthors , a r t i s t s , and th e r e s t o f us to express them- o rourse lves by r e fe rence to th e works of o the r s , which must bepro tec ted up to a po in t . The fa i r -use doc t r ine mediates betweenthe two se t s of i n t e r e s t s , determining where each s e t o f

i n t e re s t s ceases to con t ro l . " Blanch v . Koons, 467 F.3d 244, 250(2d Ci r . 2006); see also Warner Bros. Enter ta inment I nc . , v. RDRBooks, 575 F.Supp.2d 513,540 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) {"At s take in t h i scase a re the in ce ntiv e to c re ate o rig in a l works which copyr ight

12
http:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2d


13/38

pro tec t ion fos t e rs and the freedom to produce secondary workswhich monopoly pro tec t ion of copyr igh t s t i f l e s -bo t h i n t e re s t sb en e f i t the pub l ic . " ) (quoting Pier re N. Leval , Toward a F a i r UseStandard , 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105, 1109 (1990) (here inaf te rULeval") (not ing t h a t a l though uthe monopoly crea ted by copyright... rewards th e i nd iv idua l author in orde r to b e n e f i t thep u b l i c [ , ] " on th e o ther hand Uthe monopoly p r o t ec t i o n o fi n t e l l e c t u a l proper ty t h a t impeded r e f e r e n t i a l ana lys i s and th e

development of new ideas ou t o f o ld would s t r ang le th e c r ea t i v eprocess ." )

The doc t r ine of F a i r Use was cod i f ied in Sect ion 107 of the1976 Copyright Act . Sect ion 107 c a l l s fo r a f o u r - f ac to r t e s t :

Limi ta t ions on exc lus ive r i g h t s : F a i r use :

Notwiths tanding the p rov i s ions o f sec t ions 106 and106A, th e f a i r use o f a copyr igh ted work, inc lud ingsuch use by reproduct ion in copies o r phonorecords o rby any othe r means spec i f i ed by t h a t sec t ion , fo rpurposes such as c r i t i c i sm , comment, news repor t ing ,teaching (including mult ip le cop ies fo r classroom use ) ,schola rship , or research , i s not an in f r ingement o fcopyr igh t . In determining whether the use made o f awork in any pa r t i c u l a r case i s a f a i r use th e f ac to r sto be considered s ha l l inc lude

(1) th e purpose and cha rac te r o f th e use , inc lud ingwhether such use i s o f a commercial na tu re o r i s fo rnonprof i t educa t iona l purposes ;(2) t he na tu re o f th e copyr igh ted work;

13


pro tec t ion fos t e rs and th e freedom to produce secondary workswhich monopoly pro tec t ion o f c op yrig ht s t i fl e s- b o th i n te r e st sbenef i t the pub l ic . " ) (quoting Pie r re N. Leval , Toward a Fa i r UseStandard , 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105, 1109 (1990) (here inaf te rULeval") (not ing t ha t a l though uthe monopoly crea ted by copyr igh t... rewards the i nd iv idua l author in orde r to bene f i t thepub l i c [ , J " on the o the r hand Uthe monopoly pro tec t ion ofi n t e l l ec tua l proper ty t h a t impeded r e f e r en t i a l ana lys i s and th e

development of new ideas ou t of o ld would s t rang le th e crea t iveprocess . " )

The doc t r ine of Fa i r Use was cod i f ied in Sect ion 107 o f the1976 Copyright Act . Sect ion 107 ca l l s fo r a four - fac to r t e s t :

Limi ta t ions on exc lus ive r i gh t s : Fa i r use:

Notwiths tanding the provis ions of sec t ions 106 and106A, the f a i r use of a copyr ighted work, inc ludingsuch use by reproduct ion in copies o r phonorecords o rby any o ther means spec i f i ed by t h a t sec t ion , fo rpurposes such as c r i t i c i sm , comment, news r epor t ing ,te ac hin g ( in clu din g mult ip le copies fo r classroom use ) ,schola rship , or research , i s not an infr ingement o fco py rig ht. In determining whether th e use made o f awork in any pa r t i c u l a r case i s a f a i r use th e f ac to r sto be considered sha l l inc lude-

(1) th e purpose and c ha ra cte r o f the use , inc ludingwheth er su ch use i s of a commercial na tu re o r i s fo rnonp ro f it e duc at ion al purposes;(2) th e na tu re o f the copyrighted work;

13


14/38

(3) th e amount and s ubs t a n t i a l i t y o f th e por t ion usedin r e l a t i on to th e copyr igh ted work as a wholei and(4) the e f f e c t of the use upon the p o t e n t i a l market fo ro r value of th e copyr igh ted work.

17 U.S.C. 107.In apply ing th e f a i r use doc t r ine , " [ t ]h e t a s k i s n ot to be

s impl i f i ed with br igh t - l i ne ru les , fo r the s t a t u t e , l i ke th edoc t r ine it recogn izes , c a l l s fo r case-by-case ana lys i s . "Campbell , 51 0 U.S. a t 577-78. In conducting t h a t ana lys i s , " a l l[of th e four fac tors ] a re to be exp lo red , and the r e s u l t s weighedt oge the r in l i g h t of the purposes of copyr igh t ." Id .

D. Applying th e Four-Factor Analys i s1 . The Purpose and Charac ter o f P r in ce ' s Use of the Photos

i. Transformat ive Use"The c e n t r a l purpose of the inqui ry in to th e f i r s t f ac to r i s

to determine, in Ju s t i c e S t o ry ' s words, whether th e new workmerely supersede[s ] t he ob jec t s o f th e o r i g i n a l crea t ion o rin s tead adds something new, with a f u r th e r purpose o r d i f f e r e n tcharac te r , a l t e r ing th e f i r s t with new express ion , meaning, o rmessagei it asks , in o ther words, whether and to what ex ten t thenew work i s ' t rans format ive . 'Y Sal inger v . Co1t ing, No. 09 Civ.5095 (DAB), 641 F.Supp.2d 250, 256 ( rev 'd on o th e r grounds 607

14


(3 ) the amount and subs t an t i a l i t y of the por t ion usedin r e l a t i on to the copyrighted work as a wholei and(4 ) the e f f ec t of th e use upon the po ten t i a l market fo ror va lue of th e copyrighted work.

17 U.S.C. 107.In applying the f a i r use doc t r ine , " [ t ]he t a sk i s no t to be

s impl i f i ed with br igh t - l i ne ru l e s , fo r the s t a t u t e , l i ke th edoc t r ine it recogn izes , ca l l s fo r case-by-case ana lys i s . "Campbell , 510 U.S. a t 577-78. In conduct ing t h a t ana lys i s , "a l l[of th e four fac to rs ] a re to be explored, and th e r e s u l t s weighedtoge ther in l i gh t o f th e purposes o f copyr igh t . " Id .

D. Applying th e Four-Fac to r Analys is1 . The Pu rp ose and Character of Pr ince ' s Use o f th e Photos

i. Transformat ive Use"The cen t r a l purpose o f th e in qu iry i n to th e f i r s t f ac to r i s

to determine, in J us tic e S to ry 's words, whether th e new workmerely supersede[s] th e ob jec ts o f the o ri gi na l c re at io n o rins tead adds something new, with a fu r the r purpose or d i f f e r en tcharac te r , a l t e r ing th e f i r s t with new express ion , meaning, o rmessage; it asks , in o the r words, whether and to what ex ten t thenew work i s ' t r ans fo rmat ive . 'Y Sal inger v. Co1ting, No. 09 Civ.5095 (DAB), 641 F.Supp.2d 250, 256 ( rev 'd on o the r grounds 607

14


15/38

F.3d 68 (2d Cir . 2010); Campbell , 510 U.s . a t 579 ( i n t e r n a lquota t ions and c i t a t i o n s omit ted) . Although a t ransformat ive usei s not s t r i c t l y requ i red fo r th e Defendant to e s t a b l i sh th edefense o f f a i r use , " the goal o f copyr igh t , to promote sc ienceand the a r t s , i s gene ra l ly fu r the red by the crea t ion o ft ransfo rmat ive works. Such works thus l i e a t th e h ea r t o f thef a i r use d o c t r i n e ' s guaran tee of brea th ing space within th econfines of copyr igh t , and th e more t ransformat ive th e new work,

the l e s s w i l l be th e s ign i f i cance o f o ther f ac to r s , l i kecommercialism, t h a t may weigh aga ins t a f ind ing o f f a i r use ." Id .(c i t ing Sony Corp. of America v. Universa l Ci ty S tud ios , Inc . ,464 U.S. 417, 478-80 (U.S. 1984) (Blackmun, J . , d i s s en t i n g ) .

The inqui ry in to the f i r s t f ac to r of th e f a i r use t e s t ," ' t h e purpose and charac te r o f th e u s e , ' may be guided byth e examples given in the preamble to 107, looking to whetherth e use i s fo r c r i t i c i sm , o r comment, o r news r epor t ing , and thel i ke . " Campbell, 510 U.S. a t 578-79 (c i t ing 17 U.S.C. 107)( iden t i fy ing parody as a use akin to th e i l l u s t r a t i v e usesi de n t i f i e d in th e preamble) .

As th e Second C i r cu i t c lea r ly noted in Cast le Rock, the f ac tt h a t a work " r e c a s t [ s ] , t r ans fo rm[s ] , o r adap t [s] an or ig ina lwork in to a new mode of p r e s en t a t i o n , " thus making it a

15

I i


F.3d 68 (2d Cir . 2010); Campbell , 510 U.s . a t 579 ( i n t e rna lquota t ions and c i t a t i on s omit ted) . Although a t ransformat ive usei s not s t r i c t l y req uired fo r th e Defendant to e s t ab l i sh th edefense o f f a i r use , " the goal o f copyr igh t , to promote sc ienceand the a r t s , i s g e ne ra ll y f u rt he re d by the crea t ion oft ransfo rmat ive works. Such works thus l i e a t th e hea r t o f thef a i r use doc t r i n e ' s guaran tee of brea th ing space within th econfines o f c op yrig ht , and th e more t ransformat ive th e new work,

the l e s s w il l be th e s ign i f i cance o f o th er fa cto rs , l i kecommercialism, t h a t may weigh aga ins t a f ind ing o f f a i r use ." Id .(c i t ing Sony Corp. of America v. Universa l C ity S tu dio s, Inc . ,464 U.S. 417, 478-80 (U.S. 1984) (Blackmun, J . , d i s s en t i ng ) .

The inqui ry in to the f i r s t f ac to r o f th e f a i r use t e s t ," ' t h e purpose and charac te r o f th e us e , ' may be guided byth e examples given in the preamble to 107, looking to whetherth e use i s fo r c r i t i c i sm , o r comment, o r news r epor t ing , and thel i ke . " Campbell, 510 U.S. a t 578-79 (c i t ing 17 U.S.C. 107)( iden t i fy ing parody as a use akin to th e i l l u s t r a t i v e usesi den t i f i ed in th e preamble) .

As th e Second Ci r cu i t c lea r ly noted in Cast le Rock, the f ac tt h a t a work " r eca s t [ s ] , t r ans fo rm[s ] , o r adap t [s] an or ig ina lwork in to a new mode of p re s en t a t i on , " thus making it a

15


16/38

"der iva t ive work" under 17 U.S.C. 101, does no t make th e work" t r ans format ive" in th e sense of the f i r s t f a i r use f ac to r .Cast le Rock, 150 F.3d a t 143. Never the less , Defendants i n v i t et h i s Court to f ind t ha t use of copyrighted mater ia l s as rawmate r i a l s in crea t ing "appropr i a t ion a r t " which does no t commenton th e copyrighted o r i g i n a l i s a f a i r use ak in to thosei de n t i f i e d i n th e preamble to 107.

The cases Defendants c i t e fo r t he p ropos i t i on t ha t use ofcopyr igh ted mate r i a l s as "raw i ng red ien t s " in the c r ea t i o n o f newworks i s p e r se f a i r use do not suppor t t h e i r pos i t ion , and theCour t i s aware o f no precedent hold ing t ha t such use i s f a i rabsen t t ransfo rmat ive comment on th e o r i g i n a l . To the cont ra ry ,th e i l l u s t r a t i v e f a i r uses l i s t e d in the preamble to 10 7 "c r i t i c i sm, comment, news r epor t ing , teaching [ ... ] , schola rship ,[and] research" - a l l have a t t h e i r core a focus on th e o r i g i n a l

works o r t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l context , and a l l of the p receden t t h i sCour t can i d e n t i fy imposes a requirement t h a t th e new work insome way comment on, r e l a t e to the h i s t o r i c a l con tex t o f , orc r i t i c a l l y r e f e r back to the o r i g i n a l works. See, Campbell,

510 U.S. a t 579 ( t ransfo rmat ive use i s use t ha t " a l t e r [ s ] th ef i r s t with new express ion , meaning, o r message") ; Bourne v .Twent ie th Century Fox Film Corp. , 602 F.Supp.2d 499 (S.D.N.Y.Mar. 15, 2009) (Bat t s , J .) (parody song which commented both on

16


"der iva t ive work" under 17 U.S.C. 101, does no t make the work" t r ans format ive" in th e sense of the f i r s t f a i r use f ac to r .Cast le Rock, 150 F.3d a t 143. Never the less , Defendants i nv i t et h i s Court to f in d t ha t use o f c op yrig hte d mater ia l s as rawmate r i a l s in crea t ing "appropr i a t ion a r t " which does no t commenton th e copyrighted o r i g i na l i s a f a i r use ak in to thoseid en ti f ie d in th e preamble to 107.

The cases Defendants c i t e fo r th e p ro p os it io n t ha t use ofcopyr igh ted mate r i a l s as "raw i ng red ien t s " in the c r ea t i on o f newworks i s pe r se f a i r use do n ot sup po rt t h e i r pos i t ion , and theCour t i s aware o f no precedent hold ing t ha t such use i s f a i rabsen t t ransfo rmat ive comment on the o r i g i na l . To th e c on tra ry ,th e i llu s tr a t i ve f a i r uses l i s t ed in th e preamble to 107 "c r i t i c i sm, comment, news r epor t ing , t each ing [ ... ] , schola rship ,[and] research" - a l l have a t th e i r core a focus on th e o r i g i na lworks o r t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l context , and a l l of the preceden t t h i sCour t can i d en t i fy imposes a requirement t h a t th e new work insome way comment on, r e l a t e to the h i s t o r i c a l con tex t o f , orc r i t i c a l l y r e f e r back to the o r i g i na l works. See, ~ Campbell,510 U.S. a t 579 ( t ransfo rmat ive use i s use t ha t " a l t e r [ s ] th ef i r s t with new express ion , meaning, o r message") ; Bourne v .Twent ie th Century Fox Film Corp. , 602 F.Supp.2d 499 (S.D.N.Y.Mar. 15, 2009) (Bat t s , J .) (parody song which commented both on

16


17/38

th e copyr igh ted o r i g i n a l and on famous person assoc ia t ed witho r i g i n a l was t r ans fo rma t ive ) ; Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d a t 252-53(use of copyr igh ted fashion adver t i sement as "raw mate r i a l " wa st r ans format ive because a r t i s t used it to comment on th e ro le suchadver t i sements play in our cu l tu r e and on th e a t t i t u d e s th eo r i g i n a l and o ther adver t i sements l i ke it promote) ; Liebowitz v.Paramount Pic tu re s Corp. , 13 7 F.3d 109, 114 (2d Cir . 1998)(super impos i t ion of Les l ie N ie l sen ' s face on photo of bodyin tended to resemble pregnan t Demi Moore commented on o r i g i n a lphoto of Moore by holding i t s pre ten t iousness up to r i d i c u l e ) .C.f . Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301, 310 (2d C i r . 1992) , c e r t .denied , 506 u.s. 934 (1992) (sculp ture drawn from copyrightedphotograph was no t f a i r use because whi le th e scu lp tu re was a" s a t i r i c a l c r i t i que of our m a te r i a l i s t i c s o c i e ty , it i s d i f f i c u l tto d iscern any parody of [or comment on] the photographi t s e l f . " )

" I f an in f r ingement o f copyr igh tab le express ion could bej u s t i f i ed as f a i r use so le ly on the b as i s of the i n f r i nge r ' scla im to a higher o r d i f f e r e n t a r t i s t i c use . . . t he re would be

no p r ac t i c ab l e boundary t o the f a i r use defense ." Rogers v.Koons, 960 F.2d a t 310. The Court the re fo re dec l ines Defendants 'i nv i t a t i on to f ind t h a t appropr i a t ion a r t i s p e r se f a i r use ,rega rd le s s of whether o r not the new artwork in any way comments

17


th e copyr igh ted o r i g i na l and on famous person assoc ia t ed witho r i g i na l was t r ans fo rma t ive ) ; Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d a t 252-53(use o f c op yrig hte d fashion adver t i sement as "raw mate r i a l " wast r ans f ormat iv e b ecau se a r t i s t used it to comment on th e ro le suchadver t i sements play in our cu l tu r e and on th e a t t i t ude s th eo r i g i na l and o ther adver t i sements l i ke it promote) ; L ieb ow itz v .Paramount Pic tu re s Corp. , 137 F.3d 109, 114 (2d Cir . 1998)(super impos i t ion of L e slie N i els en 's face on photo of bodyin tended to resemble pregnan t Demi Moore commented on o r i g i na lphoto of Moore by holding i t s pre ten t iousness up to r i d i c u l e ) .C.f . Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301, 310 (2d Ci r . 1992) , ce r t .denied , 506 u.s. 934 (1992) (sculp ture drawn from copyrightedphotograph was no t f a i r use b ec au se while the scu lp tu re was a" s a t i r i c a l c r i t i que of our mate r i a l i s t i c soc i e ty , it i s d i f f i cu l tto d i sce rn any parody of [or comment on] the photographi t s e l f . " )

" I f an in fr in ge m en t o f copyr igh tab le exp re s si on could bej u s t i f i ed as f a i r use so le ly on the bas i s o f the i n f r i nge r ' scla im to a higher o r d i f f e r en t a r t i s t i c use . . . t he re would be

no p rac t i c ab l e boundary to th e f a i r use defense ." Rogers v.Koons, 960 F.2d a t 310. The Court the re fo re dec l ines Defendants 'i nv i t a t i on to f ind t h a t appropr i a t ion a r t i s pe r se f a i r use ,rega rd le s s of whether o r not the new artwork in any way commen ts

17


18/38

on the o r i g i n a l works appropr ia ted . Accordingly, Pr ince ' sPaint ings a re t ransformat ive only to th e ex ten t t ha t they commenton th e Photos; to th e ex ten t they merely recas t , t ransform, oradap t th e Photos, Pr ince ' s Paint ings a re in s tead in f r ing ingder iva t ive works. See Cast le Rock, 150 F.3d a t 143.

Prince t e s t i f i e d t ha t he has no i n t e r e s t in the or ig ina lmeaning o f the photographs he u ses . See RP Tr. a t 338.Prince t e s t i f i e d t ha t he d o es n ' t Ureal ly have a message" hea t t empts to communicate when making a r t . RP Tr. a t 45-46. Increa t ing th e Pa in t ings , Prince did no t in tend to comment on anyaspec ts of the o r i g i n a l works o r on th e broader c u l t u re . See

RP Tr. a t 357-60; 362-64. Pr ince ' s i n t e n t i n crea t ing theCanal Zone pa in t ings was to pay homage o r t r i b u t e to o th e rp a i n t e r s , inc luding Picasso , Cezanne, Warhol, and de Kooning, seeRP Tr. a t 164-67, 300-01, and to c rea te b e a u t i fu l artworks whichre la ted to musical themes and to a pos t -apoca lyp t i c screenplay hewas wri t ing which fea tured a reggae band, see , RP Tr. 7,30, 207-08 1 218, 232, 251-52. Prince in tended to emphasizethemes of equa l i ty of the sexes ; h igh l igh t uthe th reere l a t ionsh ips in the world , which a re men and women, men and men,and women and women"; and por t r ay a contemporary t ake on themusic scene. RP Tr. 338-39. with regard to th e pa in t ings inwhich Prince col laged g u i t a r s onto p o r t r a i t s of Ras ta fa r i an men

18


on the o r i g i na l works appropr ia ted . Accordingly, Pr ince ' sP ain tin gs a re tr an sf orm ativ e only to th e ex ten t t ha t they commenton the Photos; to th e ex ten t they merely r e ca s t , t ransform, oradap t th e Photos, Pr ince ' s P ain tin gs ar e in s te a d in fr in g in gder iva t ive works. See Cast le Rock, 150 F.3d a t 143.

Prince t e s t i f i e d t ha t he has no i n t e r e s t in the or ig ina lmeaning o f the photographs he uses . See ~ RP Tr. a t 338.Prince t e s t i f i e d t ha t he doesn ' t Ureal ly have a message" hea t t empts to communicate when making a r t . RP Tr. a t 45-46. Increa t ing th e Pa in t ings , Prince did no t in tend to comment on anyaspec ts of the o r i g i na l works o r on the broader cu l t u re . See~ RP Tr. a t 357-60; 362-64. Prince 'S in ten t in crea t ing theCanal Zone pa in t ings was to pay homage o r t r i bu t e to o the rpa in t e r s , inc luding Picasso , Cezanne, Warhol, and de Kooning, seeRP Tr. a t 164-67, 300-01, and to c rea te beau t i fu l artworks whichre la ted to musical themes and to a pos t -apoca lyp t i c screenplay hewas wri t ing which fea tured a reggae band, see , ~ RP Tr. 7,30, 207-08, 218, 232, 251-52. Prince in tended to emphasizethemes of equa l i ty of the sexes ; h igh l igh t uthe th reere l a t ionsh ips in the world , which a re men and women, men and men,and women and women"; and por t r ay a contemporary t ake on themusic scene. RP Tr. 338-39. w ith re ga rd to th e pa in t ings inwhich Pr ince col laged gu i t a r s onto po r t r a i t s of Ras ta fa r i an men

18


19/38

which were taken from Yes, Rasta , Pr ince t e s t i f i e d t ha t h ismessage re la ted to the f a c t t h a t th e men had become gu i t a rp layer s . S e e , ~ , RP T r. a t 34 0 (n[H]e 's playing the gu i t a rnow, it looks l i ke he ' s play ing th e gu i t a r , it looks as if he ' salways played the g u i t a r , t h a t ' s what my message was." ) ; see alsoRP Tr. 166-68, 279.

Prince also t e s t i f i e d t h a t h is purpose in appropr i a t ingo ther peop le ' s o r i g i n a l s fo r use in h is ar twork i s t ha t doing sohelps him nget as much fac t in to [h is ] work and reducer] theamount of specu la t ion ." RP Tr. a t 44. That i s , he chooses th ephotographs he appropr i a t e s fo r what he perce ives to be t h e i rt ru t h - suggest ing t h a t h is purpose in using Car iou ' s Ras t a fa r i anp o r t r a i t s was th e same as Car iou ' s o r i g i n a l purpose in t ak ingthem: a des i re to communicate to th e viewer core t r u t h s aboutRasta fa r ians and t h e i r cu l tu re . See B i l l Graham Archives v .Dorl ing Kindersley Ltd . , 448 F.3d 605, 609 (2d Cir . 2006)(consider ing, in weighing t ransformat iveness , whether the newpurpose in us ing an or ig ina l work was npla in ly d i f f e r e n t from theo r i g i n a l purpose fo r which it was crea ted ." )

On the f ac t s before the Court , it i s apparen t t h a t Princed id not in tend to comment on Cariou , on Car iou ' s Photos, or onaspec ts of popula r cu l tu re c lose ly as soc ia ted with Cariou or the

19


which were taken from Yes, Rasta , Pr ince t e s t i f i e d t ha t h ismessage re la ted to the fa c t th a t th e men had become gu i t a rp layer s . S e e , ~ , RP Tr. a t 340 (U[H]e 's playing the gu i t a rnow, it looks l i ke he ' s play ing th e gu i t a r , it looks as if he ' salways played the gu i t a r , t h a t ' s what my message was." ) ; see alsoRP Tr. 166-68, 279.

Prince also t e s t i f i e d t h a t h is purpose in appropr i a t ingo th er p eo pl e's o r i g i na l s fo r use in h is ar twork i s t ha t doing sohelps him Uget as much fa c t in to [h is ] work and reducer] theamount o f specu la t ion ." RP Tr. a t 44. That i s , he chooses th ephotographs he a pp ro p ria te s f or what he perce ives to be t h e i rt ru th - suggest ing t h a t h is purpose in using Ca ri ou 's R a st af ar ia npo r t r a i t s was the same as Car iou ' s o r i g i na l purpose in t ak ingthem: a des i re to communicate to th e viewer core t r u t h s aboutRasta fa r ians and t h e i r cu l tu re . See Bi l l Graham Archives v .Dorl ing Kindersley Ltd . , 448 F.3d 605, 609 (2d Cir . 2006)(consider ing, in weighing t ransformat iveness , whether the newpurpose in us ing an or ig ina l work was upla in ly d i f f e r en t from theo r i g i na l purpose fo r which it was crea ted ." )

On the f ac t s b efore th e Court , it i s apparen t t h a t Princed id not in tend to comment on Cariou , on Car iou ' s Photos, or onaspec ts of popula r cu l tu re c lo s el y a ss oc ia te d with Cariou or the

19


20/38

Photos when he appropr ia ted th e Photos , and Pr i c e ' s own tes t imonyshows t ha t h is i n t e n t was no t t r an s format ive with in the meaningof Sect ion 107, though Prince in tended h is o v e r a l l work to becrea t ive and new.

As t h i s Court and othe rs in t h i s j u r i s d i c t i on have found,where a work i s n ot "cons i s ten t ly t r ans fo rma t ive , " and " lacksr e s t r a i n t in using [P1a in t i f f 1s] o r i g i n a l express ion fo r itsi nhe ren t . . aes the t i c va lue , " t he " t r ans format ive charac te r o f[ tha t work] i s dimin ished ." Sa l inge r v. Co1t ing, No. 09 Civ. 5095(DAB), 641 F.Supp.2d 250, 262 ( r ev 'd on o th e r grounds 607 F.3d 68(2d Cir . 2 0 1 0 ; Warner Bros. Enter . Inc . v. RDR Books 575F.Supp.2d 513, 544 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ( c i t ing B i l l Graham Archivesv. Dorl ing Kinders ley Ltd . , 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir . 2006) . SeeSu n t ru s t Bank, 268 F.3d a t 1280 (Marcus, J . , concurr ing) ( f indingt ha t i s sue of t r a n s format ive charac te r cu t s "dec i s ive ly in[Defendant1s] favor" where th e r a t i o of " the borrowed and the newe lements" i s "very low, and th e incongrui ty between them wide") .

Accordingly , whi le t he re may be some minimal t ransfo rmat iveelement in tended in P r in ce ' s use o f the Photos , th e o v e r a l l

t ransfo rmat iveness var ies from work to work depending on th eamount of copying. In the works most heavi ly drawn from Cariou ' sPhotos, such as those in which Pr ince uses e n t i r e photographs o r

20


Photos when he appropr ia ted the Photos , and Pr i ce ' s own tes t imonyshows t ha t h is i n t en t was no t t r an s format ive w ith in the meaningof Sec tion 107, though Prince in tended h is ove r a l l work to bec r ea t i ve and new.

As t h i s Court and othe rs in t h i s j u r i sd i c t i on have found,where a work i s not "cons i s ten t ly t r ans fo rma t ive , " and " lacksr e s t r a i n t in using [P1a in t i f f 1s] o r i g i na l express ion fo r itsi nhe ren t . . aes the t i c va lue ," the " t ransformat ive charac te r o f

[ tha t work] i s dimin ished ." Sa l inge r v. Co1t ing, No. 09 Civ. 5095(DAB), 641 F.Supp.2d 250, 262 ( r ev 'd on o the r grounds 607 F.3d 68(2d Cir . 2010 ; Warner Bros. E nter . Inc . v. RDR Books 575F.Supp.2d 513, 544 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ( c i t ing B i l l Graham Archivesv. Dorl ing Kinders ley Ltd . , 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir . 2006) . SeeSun t ru s t Bank, 268 F.3d a t 1280 (Marcus, J . , concurr ing) ( f indingt ha t i s sue of t r an s format ive c ha ra cte r c uts " de cis iv ely in[Defendant1s] favor" where th e r a t i o of " the borrowed and the newe lements" i s "very low, and th e incongrui ty between them wide") .

Acco rd in gly , wh ile t he re may be some minimal t ransfo rmat iveelement in tended in Pr ince ' s use o f the Photos , th e ove r a l l

t ransfo rmat iveness var ies from work to work depending on th eamount of copying. In the works most heavi ly drawn from Cariou ' sPhotos, such as those in which Pr ince uses en t i r e photographs o r

20
http:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2d


21/38

una l t e red p o r t r a i t s t aken from Yes, Rasta , the re i s van i sh ing lylittle, if any, t ransfo rmat ive e lement ; in those where Cariou ' sPhotos p l a y a compara t ive ly minor ro le , Defendant has a s t ronge rargument t h a t h i s work i s t ransformat ive of Car iou ' s or ig ina lPhotos . S Overa l l , because th e t ransformat ive con ten t o f Pr ince ' spa in t ings i s minimal a t b e s t , and because t h a t e lement i s notcons i s ten t throughout th e 28 pa in t ings in which Pr ince used th ePhotos , th e " t ransformat ive use" prong o f the f i r s t 107 f ac to rweighs heavi ly aga ins t a f ind ing o f f a i r use .

ii. Commercial i tyThe second prong o f th e f i r s t f ac to r o f th e 107 t e s t asks

whether the o therwise in f r ing ing work "serves a commercial

purpose o r nonprof i t educa t iona l purpose . " Sunt rus t Bank, 268F.3d a t 1269 (c i t ing 1 0 7 ( 1 . The l e s s t ransformat ive a work,th e more impor tance should be a t tached to " the ex ten t o f i t s

8Many o f th e Pain t ings which have th e s t ronges t cla im tot r an s format ive use are a l so those in which th e amount ands ubs t a n t i a l i t y o f th e Photos used i s l e a s t reasonab le : thosewhich f ea tu re , as t h e i r c e n t r a l elements , s t r i k ing ly or ig ina lRas ta fa r i an p o r t r a i t s t aken from Yes, Rasta Photos . Seediscuss ion of t h i r d Sect ion 107 f ac to r , i n f r a . For t ha t reason,even th e most t ransformat ive Pa in t ings have only a weak claim tof a i r use , s ince the four 107 f ac to r s must be "weighed toge theri n l i g h t o f th e purposes of copyr igh t . " Campbell , 510 U.S. a t577-78.

21


una l t e red po r t r a i t s t aken from Yes, Rasta , the re i s van i sh ing lylittle, if any, t ransfo rmat ive e lement ; in those where Cariou ' sPhotos p l a y a compara t ive ly minor ro le , Defe nd an t h as a s t ronge rargument t h a t h is work i s t ransformat ive of Car iou ' s or ig ina lPhotos . 8 Overa l l , because the t ransformat ive con ten t o f Pr ince ' spa in t ings i s minimal a t bes t , and because t h a t e lement i s notcons i s ten t throughout th e 28 pa in t ings in which Pr ince used th ePhotos , th e " t ransformat ive use" prong of the f i r s t 107 f ac to rweighs heavi ly aga ins t a f ind ing o f f a i r use .

ii. Commercial i tyThe second prong o f th e f i r s t f ac to r o f th e 107 t e s t asks

whether th e otherwise in f r ing ing work "serves a commercial

purpose o r nonprof i t educa t iona l purpose." Sunt rus t Bank, 268F.3d a t 1269 (c i t ing 107 (1 . The l e s s t ransformat ive a work,th e more impor tance should be a t tached to " the ex ten t o f i t s

8Many o f th e Pain t ings which have th e s t ronges t cla im tot r an s format ive use are a l so those in which th e amount andsubs t an t i a l i t y o f th e Photos used i s l e a s t reasonab le : thosewhich f ea tu re , as t h e i r cen t r a l elements , s t r i k ing ly or ig ina lRas ta fa r i an po r t r a i t s t aken from Yes, Ras ta P hoto s. Seedi scuss ion of t h i r d Sect ion 107 f ac to r , i n f r a . For t ha t reason,even th e most t ra n sf o rma t iv e P a in ti ng s have only a weak claim tof a i r use , s ince the four 107 f ac to r s must be "weighed toge therin l ig h t o f th e purposes o f c op yr ig ht ." Campbell , 510 U.S. a t577-78.

21

! I


22/38

commercia1ity" in determining whether th e f i r s t f ac to r favors af inding o f f a i r use . Campbell, 510 U.S. a t 580-81 ( i f " thecommentary has no c r i t i c a l bear ing on th e subs tance or s ty l e ofth e o r i g i n a l composi t ion . th e claim to f a i rnes s in borrowingfrom an o th e r ' s work dimin ishes accordingly ( i f it does no tvan i sh) , and o ther fac to r s , l i ke th e ex ten t o f its commercia1i ty100m l a r g e r . " ) ; see American Geophysical Union v . Texaco In c . , 60F.3d 913, 922 (2d Cir . 1995) ("The g re a t e r the p r i v a t e economicrewards reaped by the secondary use r (to the exc lus ion o f broaderpubl ic b e n e f i t s ) , the more l i ke ly the f i r s t f ac to r wi l l favor th ecopyright ho lder and th e l e s s l i ke l y the use w i l l be consideredf a i r . " ) "[C]our t s a re more wil l ing to f ind a secondary use f a i rwhen it produces a value t h a t benef i t s th e broader pub l ici n t e r e s t . " Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244, 253-54."Notwiths tanding th e f ac t t h a t a r t i s t s are sometimes paid andmuseums sometimes earn money, th e publ ic exh ib i t ion of a r t i swidely . . . considered to have value t ha t benef i t s the widerpubl ic i n t e r e s t . " Id . (c i t a t ions and i n t e rn a l quota t ionsomitted)

The Canal Zone show a t th e Gagosian Gal le ry was adve r t i sedin seven d i f f e r e n t newspapers , f ive of which includedreproduct ions o f Car iou ' s Photos as a l t e r e d by Pr i n ce . AM T r. a t42-50; LG T r. a t 36. The Gagosian Defendants sen t some 7,500

22


commercia1ity" in determining whether th e f i r s t f ac to r favors af inding o f f a i r use . Campbell, 510 U.S. a t 580-81 ( i f " thecommentary has no c r i t i c a l bear ing on th e subs tance or s ty l e ofthe o r i g i na l composi t ion . the claim to f a i rnes s in borrowingfrom ano the r ' s work dimin ishes accordingly ( i f it does no tvan i sh) , and o ther fac to r s , l i ke th e ex ten t o f its commercia1i ty100m l a r ge r . " ) ; see American Geophysical Union v . Texaco Inc . , 60F.3d 913, 922 (2d Cir . 1995) ("The g rea t e r the p r i va t e economicrewards reaped by the secondary use r ( to the exclus ion o f broaderpubl ic bene f i t s ) , the more l i ke ly the f i r s t f ac to r wi l l favor th ecopyright ho lder and th e l e s s l i ke ly the use wi l l be consideredf a i r . " ) "[C]our t s a re more wil l ing to f ind a secondary use f a i rwhen it produces a value t h a t benef i t s th e broader pub l ici n t e r e s t . " Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244, 253-54."Notwiths tanding th e f ac t t h a t a r t i s t s are sometimes paid andmuseums sometimes earn money, th e publ ic exh ib i t ion of a r t i swidely . . . considered to have value t h a t benef i t s the widerpubl ic i n t e r e s t . " Id . (c i t a t ions and i n t e rna l quota t ionsomitted)

The Canal Zone show a t th e Gagosian Gal le ry was adve r t i sedin seven d i f f e r en t newspapers , f ive o f which includedreproduct ions o f Car iou ' s Photos as a l t e r ed by Pr ince . AM Tr. a t42-50; LG Tr. a t 36. The Gagosian Defendants sen t some 7,500

22


23/38

i nv i t a t i on cards , fea tur ing a reproduct ion o f a Prince workconta in ing a Cariou Photo, to c l i en t s of the Gal le ry , LG Tr. a t35, AM Tr. a t 29-33, and so ld the l e f t o v e r i n v i t a t i o n s to apos te r company, AM T r. a t 55-59. As a r e s u l t of these and othe rmarket ing e f fo r t s , Gagosian Gal le ry so ld e ig h t o f th e Canal ZonePaint ings for a t o t a l o f $10,480,000.00 , 60% of which went toPr ince and 40% of which went to Gagosian Gal le ry . Brooks Dec.Ex. P 2 and Ex. A; LG Tr. a t 48. Seven o th e r Canal ZonePaint ings were exchanged fo r a r t with an es t imated value between$6,000,000.00 and $8,000,000.00 . Brooks Dec. Ex P 3; LG Tr. a t136-37, 149-50. Gagosian Gal le ry so ld $6,784.00 worth o f CanalZone exh ib i t ion ca ta logs . Brooks Dec. Ex. P 4. The f ac t sbefore the Court do not es tab l i sh whether any of the Pa in t ingshave ever been made ava i lab le fo r publ ic viewing o ther than whenthey were offered fo r sa le a t th e Gal le ry .

This Court recognizes the inhe ren t pub l i c i n t e r e s t andc u l tu r a l value of publ ic exh ib i t ion of a r t and o f an overa l li nc rea se in publ ic access to ar twork. However, th e fac t s beforethe Court show t ha t Defendants ' use and exp lo i t a t ion of th ePhotos was a lso su b s t a n t i a l l y commercial , espec ia l ly where th eGagosian Defendants are concerned. Accordingly, given theo v e r a l l lo w t ransformat ive content of Pr ince ' s Paint ings , thecommercia l i ty prong o f th e f i r s t 107 fac to r weighs aga ins t af inding of f a i r use .

23


i nv i t a t i on card s, fe atu rin g a reproduct ion o f a Prince workconta in ing a Cariou Photo, to c l i en t s o f the Gal le ry , LG Tr. a t35, AM Tr. a t 29-33, and so ld the l e f t ove r i nv i t a t i on s to apos te r company, AM Tr. a t 55-59. As a r e su l t of these and othe rmarket ing e f fo r t s , Gagosian Galler y so ld e igh t o f th e Canal ZoneP ain tin gs fo r a t o t a l of $10,480,000.00 , 60% of which went toPr ince and 40% of which went to Gagosian Gal le ry . Brooks Dec.Ex. P 2 and Ex. A; LG Tr. a t 48. Seven o the r Canal ZonePaint ings were exchanged fo r a r t with an es t imated value between$6,000,000.00 and $8,000,000.00 . Brooks Dec. Ex P 3; LG Tr. a t136 -3 7, 1 49 -5 0. Gagosian Galle ry s old $6,784.00 worth of CanalZone e x hi bi ti on c a ta lo g s. Brooks Dec. Ex. P 4. The f ac t sbefore th e Court do not es tab l i sh whether any of th e P ain tin gshave ever been made a va ila ble fo r publ ic viewing o ther than whenthey were offered fo r sa le a t th e Gal le ry .

This Court recognizes the i nh er en t p u bli c i n t e r e s t andcu l tu r a l value of pub lic exh ib i t ion of a r t and o f an overa l li nc rea se in publ ic access to ar twork. However, th e fac t s beforethe Court show t ha t Defendants ' use and exp lo i t a t ion of th ePhotos was a lso subs t an t i a l l y commercial , espec ia l ly where th eGagosian Defendants are co nc ern ed . A cc ord in gly , given theove r a l l low t ra n sf orma ti ve c ont en t of Pr ince ' s Paint ings , thecommercia l i ty prong of th e f i r s t 107 fac to r weighs aga ins t af ind ing of f a i r use .

23
http:///reader/full/10,480,000.00http:///reader/full/6,000,000.00http:///reader/full/8,000,000.00http:///reader/full/6,784.00http:///reader/full/10,480,000.00http:///reader/full/6,000,000.00http:///reader/full/8,000,000.00http:///reader/full/6,784.00http:///reader/full/10,480,000.00http:///reader/full/6,000,000.00http:///reader/full/8,000,000.00http:///reader/full/6,784.00


24/38

iii. Bad F a i th

The f i r s t 107 fac to r r equ i res th e Cour t to consider " thepropr ie ty o f a de fendan t ' s conduct ," which i s an i n t e g ra l p a r t ofthe Cour t ' s ana lys i s of the charac te r of the use . NXIVM Corp. v .Ross In s t . , 364 F.3d 471, 478 (2d Cir . 2004) (c i ta t ions omit ted) .Though no t in i t s e l f dete rmina t ive , " i t has been consideredr e levan t within t h i s subfac to r t h a t a defendant could haveacquired the copyrighted [mater ia l ] l eg i t ima te ly . " Id .

Here, Prince t e s t i f i e d t ha t he does n ot have a d i f f e r e n ts tandard o r weigh d i f f e r e n t cons idera t ions when appropr ia t ingworks with a di sc losed author than he does when using mater ia l st h a t are in th e publ i c domain; to Pr ince , the ques t ion of whetheran image i s appropr i a t e fo r h is use i s " j u s t a ques t ion ofwhether [he] l i k e [ s ] th e image." RP T r. a t 100. Pr i n c e ' semployee contac ted the publ i she r o f Yes, Ras ta to purchaseadd i t iona l copies of the book, but apparent ly n e i t h e r Prince norh is employee ever asked th e publ i she r about l i cens ing o rotherwise sought permission to use Yes, Rasta o r the Photosconta ined t he re in l eg i t ima te ly . RP T r. 236-41, 183. Nor d idPrince a t t empt to con tac t Cariou by emai l and inqu i re about usager igh t s to the Photos , even though Yes, Ras ta c l e a r ly ide n t i f i e dCariou as th e sole copyr igh t ho lder and even though Car iou ' spub l ic ly -acces s ib le websi t e inc ludes an emai l address a t which he

24

I I


iii. Bad Fa i th

The f i r s t 107 fac to r r equ i res th e Cour t to consider " thepropr ie ty o f a de fendan t ' s conduct ," which i s an i n t eg ra l pa r t o fthe Court 's a na ly sis of the charac te r of the use . NXIVM Corp. v.Ross In s t . , 364 F.3d 471, 478 (2d Cir . 2004) (c i ta t ions omit ted) .Though not in i t s e l f dete rmina t ive , " i t has been consideredr e levan t within t h i s subfac to r t h a t a defendan t could havea cq uire d th e c op yrig hte d [m ate ria l] l eg i t ima te ly . " Id .

Here, Prince t e s t i f i e d t ha t he does not have a d i f f e r en ts tandard o r weigh d i f f e r en t cons idera t ions when appropr ia t ingworks with a di sc losed author than he does when using mater ia l st h a t are in th e publ i c domain; to Pr ince , th e q ues tio n of whetheran image i s a pp ro pria te f or h is use i s " j u s t a ques t ion ofwhether [he] l i k e [ s ] th e image." RP Tr. a t 100. Pr ince ' semployee contac ted the publ i she r o f Yes, Ras ta to purchaseadd i t iona l cop ies o f the book, but apparent ly ne i t he r Prince norh is employee ever asked th e publ i she r about l i cens ing o rotherwise sought permission to use Yes, Rasta o r the Photosconta ined t he re in l eg it im a t el y. RP Tr. 236-41, 183. Nor d idPrince a t t empt to con tac t Cariou by emai l and inqu i re about usager igh t s to the Photos , even tho ug h Yes, Ras ta c l ea r ly iden t i f i edCariou as th e sole c op yrig ht h old er and ev en th ou gh Car iou ' spub l ic ly -acces s ib le websi t e inc ludes an emai l address a t which he

24

I I


25/38

may be reached . See PC T r. 238-40, 254, 260. Under thesec i rcumstances , Pr ince ' s bad f a i t h i s evident . Moreover, s incethe record es t ab l i s h e s t ha t th e Gagosian Defendants were awaret h a t Prince i s an hab i tua l user of o th e r a r t i s t s ' copyr igh tedwork, withou t permiss ion , and because th e record i s equa l ly c l e a rt ha t th e Gagosian Defendants n e i th e r inqui red in to whether Princehad obta ined permiss ion to use th e Photos con ta ined in th e CanalZone Paint ings nor ceased t h e i r commercial exp lo i t a t ion of th ePa int ings a f t e r rece iv ing Ca r iou ' s cease -and-des i s t no t ice , thebad f a i t h of the Gagosian Defendants i s equa l ly c l e a r .

Because Pr ince ' s use wa s a t most only minimal lyt r ans format ive of Car iou ' s Photos , because the use wassu b s t a n t i a l l y though n ot exc lus ive ly commercial , and becausePrince and the Gagosian Defendants ac ted in bad f a i t h , the f i r s tf ac to r in th e f a i r use ana lys i s weighs heavi ly in favor o fP l a i n t i f f .

2. The Nature of the Copyrighted WorkUThe more the copyr igh ted mat te r i s a t the cen t e r of the

pro tec t ed concerns of the copyright law, th e more the o therfac to r s , inc lud ing j u s t i f i ca t i on , must favor th e secondary use r

2S


may be reached. See PC T r . 238-40, 254, 260. Under t h e s ecircumstances, P r i n c e ' s bad f a i t h i s e v i d e n t . Moreover, s i n c et h e r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h e Gagosian Defendants were aw aret h a t P r i n c e i s an h a b i t u a l u s e r o f o t h e r a r t i s t s ' copyr ightedwork, wit hout p erm is si on , and because t h e r e c o r d i s e q u a l l y c l e a rt h a t t h e Gagosian Defendants n e i t h e r i n q u i r e d i n t o whether P r i n c ehad o b t a i n e d permiss ion t o use t h e Photos c o n t a i n e d i n t h e CanalZone P a i n t i n g s n o r ceased t h e i r commercial e x p l o i t a t i o n o f t h e

P a i n t i n g s a f t e r r e c e i vi n g C a r i o u ' s c e a se - a n d -d e s i s t n o t ic e , t h ebad f a i t h o f t h e Gagosian Defendants i s e q u a l l y c l e a r .

Because P r i n c e ' s use was a t most only m in imallyt r a n s format ive o f C a r i o u ' s Pho to s, b ecau se t h e use wass u b s t a n t i a l l y though n o t e x c l u s i v e l y commercial , and becauseP r i n c e and t h e Gagosian Defendants a c t e d i n bad f a i t h , t h e f i r s tf a c t o r i n t h e f a i r use a n a l y s i s weighs h e a v i l y i n favor o fP l a i n t i f f .

2. The Nature o f t h e Copyrighted Work~ T h e more t h e copyr ighted m a t t e r i s a t t h e c e n t e r o f t h e

p r o t e c t e d concerns o f t h e c o p y r i g h t law, t h e more t h e o t h e rf a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g j u s t i f i c a t i o n , must favor t h e secondary u s e r

2S


26/38

in o rd e r to earn a f a i r use f ind ing . " Leval a t 1122. "Thes t a t u t o ry a r t i c u l a t i on of t h i s f ac to r de r ives from Jus t i ce

S to ry ' s mention ... of th e ' va lue of the mater ia l s u s ed . 'Jus t i ce S to r y ' s word choice i s more communicat ive than ours t a t u t e ' s ' na tu re o f , ' as it suggests t ha t some pro tec t ed mat te ri s more ' va lued ' under copyright t ha t o th e r s . This should n ot beseen as an i nv i t a t i on to judges to pass on [ a r t i s t i c ] q u a l i t y ,b u t ra the r to consider whether the pro tec ted [work] i s of th ec r ea t i v e o r i n s t ruc t ive type t ha t th e copyr igh t laws value andseek to fos te r . " Id . a t 1117. A key d i s t i n c t i o n t h a t has emerged" in th e dec is ions eva lua t ing the second f ac to r [ i s] whether thework i s express ive o r c r ea t i v e , such as a work of f i c t i on , o rmore f ac tua l , with a g r ea t e r leeway being a l lowed to a cla im off a i r use where the work i s f ac tua l or in fo rma t iona l . " 2 Abrams,The Law o f Copyright , 15:52 (2006).

Here, th e Court f inds t h a t Cariou ' s Photos a re high lyo r i g i n a l and crea t ive a r t i s t i c works and t h a t they cons t i tu t e"c rea t ive express ion fo r publ ic disseminat ion" and thus " fa l l [ ]with in th e core o f th e copyr igh t ' s p ro tec t ive purposes . "Campbel l , 510 U.S. a t 586. Consequen t ly , t h i s f a c t o r weighsaga ins t a f inding o f f a i r use .

26


in o rde r to earn a f a i r use f ind ing . " Leval a t 1122. "Thes t a t u t o ry a r t i cu l a t i on of t h i s f ac to r de r ives from Jus t i ce

Story1s mention ... of th e ' va lue of the mater ia l s u s ed . 'Jus t i ce S to ry ' s word choice i s more communicat ive than ours t a tu te1s ' na tu re o f , ' as it suggests t ha t some pro tec t ed mat te ri s more ' va lued ' under copyright t ha t o the r s . This should not beseen as an i nv i t a t i on to judges to pass on [ a r t i s t i c ] qua l i t y ,bu t ra the r to consider whether the pro tec ted [work] i s of th ec r ea t i ve o r i n s t ruc t ive type t ha t th e copyr igh t laws value andseek to fos te r . " Id . a t 1117. A key d i s t i n c t i on t h a t has emerged" in the de ci si on s e val ua ti ng the second f ac to r [ i s] whether thework i s express ive o r c r ea t i ve , such as a work of f i c t i on , o rmore f ac tua l , with a g rea t e r leeway b ein g a llo we d to a cla im off a i r use where the work i s f ac tua l o r i nf o rma ti on a l. " 2 Abrams,The Law o f Copyright , 15:52 (2006).

Here, th e Court f inds t h a t Cariou ' s Photos are high lyo r i g i na l and crea t ive a r t i s t i c works and t h a t they cons t i tu t e"c rea t ive express ion fo r publ ic disseminat ion" and thus " fa l l [ ]with in the core o f th e c op y rig h ts p ro t ec t i ve purposes . "Campbel l , 510 U.S. a t 586. Consequen t ly , t h i s f a c t o r weighsaga ins t a f inding of f a i r use .

26


27/38

3. The Amount and Subs tan t i a l i ty of the Por t ion UsedThe "amount and s ubs t a n t i a l i t y o f th e por t ion of the

copyr igh ted work used [] must be examined in con tex t [and] th einqu i ry must focus on whether th e ex ten t o f [ the] copying i scons i s ten t with o r more than necessary to f u r th e r the purpose andcharac te r o f the use ." Cas t le Rock, 150 F.3d a t 144 (guot ingCampbell, 510 U.S. a t 586-87) ( i n t e r n a l quota t ions omit ted) . The

Court must examine not on ly " the quan t i ty of the mate r i a l s used,bu t t h e i r qua l i ty and impor tance too ." Warner Bros. En te r . , Inc . ,57 5 F.Supp. a t 546 (quoting Campbell 510 U.S. a t 587).

"[W]hatever the use , gene ra l ly it may n ot c o n s t i t u t e a f a i ruse if th e e n t i r e work i s reproduced ." weissmann v . Freeman, 868F.2d 1313, 1325 (2d Cir . 1989) (c i t ing 3 Nimmer on Copyright 13.05[A] a t 13-80) . Moreover, the amount and s u b s t a n t i a l i t yf a c t o r weighs in favor of the copyr igh t ho lder "where th e por t ionused was e s s e n t i a l l y the h ea r t of the copyr igh ted work." Wrightv . Warner Books, In c . , 953 F.2d 731, 738 (2d Cir . 1991) (quotingHarper & Row, 471 U.S. a t 565) ( i n t e r n a l quota t ions omi t t ed ) .

"As the s t a t u t o ry language i nd ica tes , a t ak ing may n ot beexcused merely because it i s i n sUbs tan t i a l with r espec t to thei n f r ing ing work." Harper & Row v. Nat ion En te r s . , 471 U.S. a t 565( c i t a ti on omitted) (emphasis in or ig ina l ) (quoting Judge Learned

27


3. The Amount and Subs tan t i a l i ty of the Po r tion UsedThe "amount and subs t an t i a l i t y o f the por t ion of the

copyr igh ted work used [] must be examined in con tex t [and] th einqu i ry must focus on whether th e ex ten t o f [the] copying i scons i s ten t with o r more th an n ec es sa ry to f u r the r the purpose andcharac te r o f the u se ." C as t le Rock, 150 F.3d a t 144 (quot ingCampbell, 510 U.S. a t 586-87) ( i n t e rna l quota t ions omit ted) . The

Court must ex am in e not on ly " the quan t i ty of the mate r i a l s used,bu t t h e i r qua l i ty and impor tance too ." Warner Bros. En te r . , Inc . ,575 F.Supp. a t 546 (quoting Campbell 510 U.S. a t 587).

"[W]ha

Cariou v. Prince (SDNY 2011; Fair Use)

Documents

Transcript of Cariou v. Prince (SDNY 2011; Fair Use)