In December of 2008 photographer Patrick Cariou filed suit against Ricard Prince, Gagosian Gallery, Lawrence Gagosian and Rizzoli International Publications in federal district court (here). The suit came about after Prince appropriated 28 images from Patrick’s Yes Rasta book for his Canal Zone exhibit at the Gagosian gallery. Several of the pieces, as you can see from the comparisons below ,were barely changed under the “artist’s” hand.
Yesterday, US District Judge Deborah A. Batts ruled on the cross-motions for summary judgment:
Defendants Richard Prince, Gagosian Gallery, Inc., and Lawrence Gagosian seek a determination that their use of Plaintiff’s copyrighted photographs was a fair use under the relevant section of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 107(1)-(4), and that Plaintiff’s claim for conspiracy to violate his rights under the Copyright Act is barred by law. Plaintiff seeks summary judgment in his favor on the issue of liability for copyright infringement.
She found that the use by Prince was not Fair Use, the conspiracy claim was found to be barred by law and Patrick’s issue of liability for copyright infringement was granted in its entirety. In other words, Patrick won.
I’m sure there will be an appeal, but this is quite a victory for photographers and the judgment is fascinating reading for fair use buffs (download it here), What I really found interesting is how badly most people (myself included) interpret the transformation part of appropriating works. Everyone talks about adding value through transformation but the reality is that you must be commenting on the original image or expression in some way. This line quoted from Rogers vs. Koons puts the nail in the idea of adding value as some kind of transformation “If an infringement of copyrightable expression could be justified as fair use solely on the basis of the infringer’s claim to a higher or different artistic use . . . there would be no practicable boundary to the fair use defense.” Transforming a picture of President Obama into a poster does not qualify nor does commenting on commercial advertising by taking close up shots of cowboys in cigarette advertising images.
I’ve included some highlights from the 38 page filing:
Some of the paintings, like “Graduation (2008)” and “Canal Zone (2008),” consist almost entirely of images taken from Yes, Rasta, albeit collaged, enlarged, cropped, tinted, and/or over-painted, while others, like “lIe de France (2008)” use portions of Yes, Rasta Photos as collage elements and also include appropriated photos from other sources and more substantial original painting.
In total, Prince admits using at least 41 Photos from Yes, Rasta as elements of Canal Zone Paintings
Other than by private sale to individuals Cariou knew and liked, the Photos have never been sold or licensed for use other than in the Yes, Rasta book. However, Cariou testified that he was negotiating with gallery owner Christiane CelIe (“CelIe”), who planned to show and sell prints of the Yes, Rasta Photos at her Manhattan gallery, prior to the Canal Zone show’s opening. Cariou also testified that he intended in the future to issue artists’ editions of the Photos, which would be offered for sale to collectors.
when CelIe became aware of the Canal Zone exhibition at the Gagosian Gallery, she cancelled the show she and Cariou had discussed. CelIe testified that she decided to cancel the show because she did not want to seem to be capitalizing on Prince’s success and notoriety, and because she did not want to exhibit work which had been “done already” at another gallery.
Defendants assert that Cariou’s Photos are mere compilations of facts concerning Rastafarians and the Jamaican landscape, arranged with minimum creativity in a manner typical of their genre, and that the Photos are therefore not protectable as a matter of law, despite Plaintiff’s extensive testimony about the creative choices he made in taking, processing, developing, and selecting them. Unfortunately for Defendants, it has been a matter of settled law for well over one hundred years that creative photographs are worthy of copyright protection even when they depict real people and natural environments. See,~, Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 60 {1884}
From the infancy of copyright protection, some opportunity for fair use of copyrighted materials has been thought necessary to fulfill copyright’s very purpose, “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts ….” Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 575 (1994) (quoting U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8). At the Constitutional level, while the “Copyright Clause and the First Amendment [are] intuitively in conflict, [they] were drafted to work together to prevent censorship” such that “the balance between the First Amendment and copyright is preserved, in part, by the idea/expression dichotomy and the doctrine of fair use
although “the monopoly created by copyright … rewards the individual author in order to benefit the public[,]” on the other hand “the monopoly protection of intellectual property that impeded referential analysis and the development of new ideas out of old would strangle the creative process.”
Now, looking into the 4 factors that make up fair use:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The judge weighs each one:
1. The Purpose and Character of Prince’s Use of the Photos
i. Transformative Use
the fact that a work “recast[s], transform[s], or adapt [s] an original work into a new mode of presentation,” thus making it a “derivative work” under 17 U.S.C. § 101, does not make the work “transformative” in the sense of the first fair use factor.
The cases Defendants cite for the proposition that use of copyrighted materials as “raw ingredients” in the creation of new works is per se fair use do not support their position, and the Court is aware of no precedent holding that such use is fair absent transformative comment on the original. To the contrary, the illustrative fair uses listed in the preamble to § 107 “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching [ …], scholarship, [and] research” – all have at their core a focus on the original works or their historical context, and all of the precedent this Court can identify imposes a requirement that the new work in some way comment on, relate to the historical context of, or critically refer back to the original works.
“If an infringement of copyrightable expression could be justified as fair use solely on the basis of the infringer’s claim to a higher or different artistic use . . . there would be no practicable boundary to the fair use defense.” Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d at 310. The Court therefore declines Defendants’ invitation to find that appropriation art is per se fair use, regardless of whether or not the new artwork in any way comments on the original works appropriated. Accordingly, Prince’s Paintings are transformative only to the extent that they comment on the Photos; to the extent they merely recast, transform, or adapt the Photos, Prince’s Paintings are instead infringing derivative works.
Prince testified that he doesn’t “really have a message” he attempts to communicate when making art.
ii. Commerciality
As a result of these and other marketing efforts, Gagosian Gallery sold eight of the Canal Zone Paintings for a total of $10,480,000.00, 60% of which went to Prince and 40% of which went to Gagosian Gallery. Seven other Canal Zone Paintings were exchanged for art with an estimated value between $6,000,000.00 and $8,000,000.00. Gagosian Gallery sold $6,784.00 worth of Canal Zone exhibition catalogs.
This Court recognizes the inherent public interest and cultural value of public exhibition of art and of an overall increase in public access to artwork. However, the facts before the Court show that Defendants’ use and exploitation of the Photos was also substantially commercial, especially where the Gagosian Defendants are concerned.
iii. Bad Faith
Prince’s employee contacted the publisher of Yes, Rasta to purchase additional copies of the book, but apparently neither Prince nor his employee ever asked the publisher about licensing or otherwise sought permission to use Yes, Rasta or the Photos contained therein legitimately. Nor did Prince attempt to contact Cariou by email and inquire about usage rights to the Photos, even though Yes, Rasta clearly identified Cariou as the sole copyright holder and even though Cariou’s publicly-accessible website includes an email address at which he may be reached. Under these circumstances, Prince’s bad faith is evident.
Moreover, since the record establishes that the Gagosian Defendants were aware that Prince is an habitual user of other artists’ copyrighted work, without permission, and because the record is equally clear that the Gagosian Defendants neither inquired into whether Prince had obtained permission to use the Photos contained in the Canal Zone Paintings nor ceased their commercial exploitation of the Paintings after receiving Cariou’s cease-and-desist notice, the bad faith of the Gagosian Defendants is equally clear
2. The Nature of the Copyrighted Work
“The statutory articulation of this factor derives from Justice Story’s mention … of the ‘value of the materials used.’ Justice Story’s word choice is more communicative than our statute’s ‘nature of,’ as it suggests that some protected matter is more ‘valued’ under copyright that others. This should not be seen as an invitation to judges to pass on [artistic] quality, but rather to consider whether the protected [work] is of the creative or instructive type that the copyright laws value and seek to foster.”
Here, the Court finds that Cariou’s Photos are highly original and creative artistic works and that they constitute “creative expression for public dissemination” and thus “fall[] within the core of the copyright’s protective purposes.”
3. The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used
In a number of his Paintings, Prince appropriated entire Photos, and in the majority of his Paintings, Prince appropriated the central figures depicted in portraits taken by Cariou and published in Yes, Rasta. Those central figures are of overwhelming quality and importance to Cariou’s Photos, going to the very heart of his work.
4. The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market for or Value of the Copyrighted Work
Defendants’ protestations that Cariou has not marketed his Photos more aggressively (or, indeed, as aggressively as Prince has marketed his Paintings) are unavailing. As the Second Circuit has previously emphasized, the “potential market” for the copyrighted work and its derivatives must be examined, even if the “author has disavowed any intention to publish them during his lifetime,” given that an author “has the right to change his mind” and is “entitled to protect his opportunity to sell his [works].”
Finally after the judge ruled that they violated Patrick’s copyright and are liable:
That Defendants shall within ten days of the date of this Order deliver up for impounding, destruction, or other disposition, as Plaintiff determines, all infringing copies of the Photographs, including the Paintings and unsold copies of the Canal Zone exhibition book, in their possession, custody, or control and all transparencies, plates, masters, tapes, film negatives, discs, and other articles for making such infringing copies. That Defendants shall notify in writing any current or future owners of the Paintings of whom they are or become aware that the Paintings infringe the copyright in the Photographs, that the Paintings were not lawfully made under the Copyright Act of 1976, and that the Paintings cannot lawfully be displayed under 17 U.S.C. § 109(c)
(Berk on left)
(Berk on left)
