Cariou v. Prince

Last updated

Cariou v. Prince
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Citation(s) 714 F.3d 694
Case history
Prior history 784 F. Supp. 2d 337 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Barrington Daniels Parker Jr., Peter W. Hall, J. Clifford Wallace (9th Cir.)
Case opinions
MajorityParker, joined by Hall
Concur/dissentWallace

Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694 (2d Cir. 2013) [1] is a copyright case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on the question of whether artist Richard Prince's appropriation art treatment of Patrick Cariou's photographs was copyright infringement or fair use. [2] The Second Circuit held in 2013 that Prince's appropriation art could constitute fair use, and that a number of his works were transformative fair uses of Cariou's photographs. [3] The Court remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for reconsideration of five of Prince's works. The Supreme Court denied Cariou's petition for a writ of certiorari, and the case settled in 2014. [3]

Contents

Cariou was criticized, both by academics and other courts, for giving too much weight to transformative use in determining fair use. In 2021, another Second Circuit panel hearing Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith on appeal, decided that "some clarification is in order" since the trial court had read too much into its decision that Andy Warhol's Orange Prince had sufficiently transformed the photograph it was based on as not to be infringing. Two years later the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision.

Background

Patrick Cariou published Yes, Rasta, a book of his black and white photographs of the Rastafarian community in Jamaica, in 2000. [3] Eight years later Richard Prince created Canal Zone, a series of art works incorporating Cariou's photographs. [3] Prince's works involved copying the original photographs and engaging in a variety of transformations. These included printing them, increasing them in size, blurring or sharpening, adding content (sometimes in color), and sometimes compositing multiple photographs together or with other works. [3] Prince exhibited his collection at Gagosian Gallery in New York as appropriation art.

In 2009, Cariou filed a copyright infringement suit against Richard Prince, as well as Gagosian Gallery, Larry Gagosian (the founder and owner of the gallery), and RCS MediaGroup (which printed the exhibit catalog). [3]

Findings

The Southern District of New York (SDNY), in March 2011, held that Prince's works were infringing. [4] At that point, the Cariou v. Prince case received significant attention, because the court ordered that Prince's unsold works, and Rizzoli's catalogs, be impounded and destroyed. [3] The SDNY found that the works were not transformative, in part because Richard Prince did not claim to be "commenting upon" the original works. [4]

Prince, whose works often sell in galleries for many thousands of dollars, appealed to the Second Circuit. The case was of high interest to the art world, which largely favored Prince's position, [5] and to the photographic community, which largely favored Cariou's position.[ citation needed ]

In April 2013, the Second Circuit reversed the lower court, finding that most of Prince's works were indeed "transformative" to a "reasonable observer" and therefore fair use. In particular, the circuit found that the lower court erred in requiring that the appropriating artist claim to be commenting on the original work, and found works to be transformative if they presented a new aesthetic. "A secondary work may constitute a fair use even if it serves some purpose other than those (criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research) identified in the preamble to the statute", wrote Judge Barrington Daniels Parker for the three-judge panel."Our conclusion should not be taken to suggest, however, that any cosmetic changes to the photographs would necessarily constitute fair use." [1]

One of Cariou's photos (left), along with the photo titled 'Graduation', by Prince (right) (one of the five photos that the Second Circuit remanded back to the trial court for further consideration) Cariou v Prince example photograph juxtaposition.webp
One of Cariou's photos (left), along with the photo titled 'Graduation', by Prince (right) (one of the five photos that the Second Circuit remanded back to the trial court for further consideration)

The court found 25 of 30 works to be transformative fair use under its standard, and remanded the case to the lower court for reconsideration of five of the works under the Second Circuit's new standard. In a separate opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part, Judge J. Clifford Wallace of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation, said that while he agreed with the general principles of transformative use the court had articulated, having done so the court should have remanded all the Prince images to the district court for reconsideration under that standard, more in keeping with general procedure. [1] [lower-alpha 1]

Wallace also differed over the exclusion of Prince's statements as to his intent in creating his derivative work. Conceding that in Blanch v. Koons the circuit had cautioned that such statements were not the " sine qua non " in determining fair use, [6] he pointed out that it had considered those statements in Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group Inc. . [7]

In 2014, Cariou and Prince settled the case before it was reheard in district court. [3]

Subsequent jurisprudence

In Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation , a case decided by the Seventh Circuit in 2014, a photographer alleged that an altered photograph of his of a local mayor used on a T-shirt that mocked the subject was infringing. A unanimous panel rejected the claim, but nonetheless was leery of Cariou as a precedent. Judge Frank Easterbrook said the court was "skeptical", since they feared it could be read as displacing the other factors in the fair-use inquiry, to the point that almost any transformative use would be sufficient. "To say that a new use transforms the work is precisely to say that it is derivative", he wrote. "Cariou and its predecessors in the Second Circuit do not explain how every 'transformative use' can be 'fair use' without extinguishing the author's rights under [the law]. We think it best to stick to the statutory list." [8]

The Second Circuit acknowledged Kienitz as well as similar criticism in Nimmer on Copyright when it decided TCA Television Corp. v. McCollum in 2016, even as it called Cariou "[the] high-water mark of our court's recognition of transformative works". There, the petitioners claimed the respondent playwright had infringed their copyright on the Abbott and Costello "Who's On First?" comedy routine by including a minute worth of it in his play Hand of God. While it was found transformative use did not apply because the excerpt of the routine was used without alteration (McCollum's arguments that it was used more dramatically in the play notwithstanding), the court held for the respondent because the petitioners could not establish the validity of the copyright, which the Copyright Office had concluded expired in 1972 after it was not renewed. [9]

Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith

The Second Circuit would revisit the case more significantly in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith , brought by rock photographer Lynn Goldsmith when she sought royalties from the foundation, which has administered Warhol's work since his death in 1987. She had learned only in 2016, when Orange Prince, one of the artist's Prince Series , was used for a memorial magazine cover following Prince's death, that Warhol had used a 1981 photograph of Prince she had licensed to Condé Nast in 1984 as a reference for the series, and sought a share of royalties for the reuse. Federal judge John Koeltl, who heard the case in the Southern District of New York, relied on Cariou to hold that the Warhol works were transformative, "add[ing] something new to the world of art and the public would be deprived of this contribution if the works could not be distributed", and so finding for the foundation on three of the four fair-use factors. [10] In a footnote, Koeltl acknowledged criticism of Cariou for promoting overreliance on transformative use but said he was bound by it as circuit precedent and the circuit's history of giving transformative use great weight. [11]

Goldsmith appealed to the Second Circuit, which reversed Koeltl. Among the other factors that led the panel to that outcome was how he had applied Cariou. Acknowledging the same criticism it had in McCollum, this time Judge Gerard Lynch wrote: [12]

While we remain bound by Cariou, and have no occasion or desire to question its correctness on its own facts, our review of the decision below persuades us that some clarification is in order ... [B]oth the Supreme Court and this Court have emphasized that fair use is a context-sensitive inquiry that does not lend itself to simple bright-line rules.(citations omitted) Notwithstanding, the district court appears to have read Cariou as having announced such a rule, to wit, that any secondary work is necessarily transformative as a matter of law '[i]f looking at the works side-by-side, the secondary work has a different character, a new expression, and employs new aesthetics with [distinct] creative and communicative results.'"(citations omitted) Although a literal construction of certain passages of Cariou may support that proposition, such a reading stretches the decision too far.

Reviewing Cariou and other cases, Lynch found a commonality among works not adjudged transformative, including five of Prince's photographs in Cariou that it had remanded to the district court to decide. "[W]here a secondary work does not obviously comment on or relate back to the original or use the original for a purpose other than that for which it was created, the bare assertion of a 'higher or different artistic use,'" he wrote, "is insufficient to render a work transformative. Rather, the secondary work itself must reasonably be perceived as embodying a distinct artistic purpose, one that conveys a new meaning or message separate from its source material." [13]

In 2023, the foundation appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the Second Circuit in a 7-2 decision. Justice Sonia Sotomayor's majority opinion reiterated its holding that, since the instance complained of the two images were used for a similar commercial purpose, they were not dissimilar enough for the Warhol to be fair use even though Warhol might have been showing Prince as an iconic celebrity, stripped of the vulnerability he had shown in Goldsmith's photo. In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan criticized the majority harshly for what she saw as its failure to appreciate the value of copying and transforming in art. [14]

Notes

  1. "[W]hile I admit freely that I am not an art critic or expert, I fail to see how the majority in its appellate role can 'confidently' draw a distinction between the twenty-five works that it has identified as constituting fair use and the five works that do not readily lend themselves to a fair use determination ... If the district court is in the best position to determine fair use as to some paintings, why is the same not true as to all paintings? Certainly we are not merely to use our personal art views to make the new legal application to the facts of this case." Cariou, 713–14

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fair use</span> Concept in copyright law

Fair use is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement. The U.S. "fair use doctrine" is generally broader than the "fair dealing" rights known in most countries that inherited English Common Law. The fair use right is a general exception that applies to all different kinds of uses with all types of works. In the U.S., fair use right/exception is based on a flexible proportionality test that examines the purpose of the use, the amount used, and the impact on the market of the original work.

<i>Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.</i>

Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 153 F.3d 82, was a copyright case about the Russian language weekly Russian Kurier in New York City that had copied and published various materials from Russian newspapers and news agency reports of Itar-TASS. The case was ultimately decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The decision was widely commented upon and the case is considered a landmark case because the court defined rules applicable in the U.S. on the extent to which the copyright laws of the country of origin or those of the U.S. apply in international disputes over copyright. The court held that to determine whether a claimant actually held the copyright on a work, the laws of the country of origin usually applied, but that to decide whether a copyright infringement had occurred and for possible remedies, the laws of the country where the infringement was claimed applied.

Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which public interest in learning about a historical figure's impressions of a historic event was held not to be sufficient to show fair use of material otherwise protected by copyright. Defendant, The Nation, had summarized and quoted substantially from A Time to Heal, President Gerald Ford's forthcoming memoir of his decision to pardon former president Richard Nixon. When Harper & Row, who held the rights to A Time to Heal, brought suit, The Nation asserted that its use of the book was protected under the doctrine of fair use, because of the great public interest in a historical figure's account of a historic incident. The Court rejected this argument holding that the right of first publication was important enough to find in favor of Harper.

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

In United States copyright law, transformative use or transformation is a type of fair use that builds on a copyrighted work in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original, and thus does not infringe its holder's copyright. Transformation is an important issue in deciding whether a use meets the first factor of the fair-use test, and is generally critical for determining whether a use is in fact fair, although no one factor is dispositive.

Lynn Goldsmith is an American recording artist, film director, celebrity portrait photographer, and rock and roll photographer. She has also made fine art photography with conceptual images and with her painting. Books of her work have been published by Taschen, Rizzoli, and Abrams. In 1985, she received a World Press Photo award. In the 1980s, she wrote songs and performed as Will Powers. In 2023, she was part of a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the limits of fair use concerning a series of Andy Warhol silkscreen portraits based on a Goldsmith photo of the musician Prince.

<i>Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp.</i>

Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 137 F.3d 109, is an influential Second Circuit fair use case.

Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright. In the case appealed, Feist had copied information from Rural's telephone listings to include in its own, after Rural had refused to license the information. Rural sued for copyright infringement. The Court ruled that information contained in Rural's phone directory was not copyrightable and that therefore no infringement existed.

In art, appropriation is the use of pre-existing objects or images with little or no transformation applied to them. The use of appropriation has played a significant role in the history of the arts. In the visual arts, "to appropriate" means to properly adopt, borrow, recycle or sample aspects of human-made visual culture. Notable in this respect are the readymades of Marcel Duchamp.

<i>Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.</i> U.S. legal case on copyright originality

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality. Even though accurate reproductions might require a great deal of skill, experience, and effort, the key element to determine whether a work is copyrightable under US law is originality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Derivative work</span> Concept in copyright law

In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work. The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright. Translations, cinematic adaptations and musical arrangements are common types of derivative works.

<i>Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.</i> 2007 American legal decision

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 was a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit involving a copyright infringement claim against Amazon.com, Inc. and Google, Inc., by the magazine publisher Perfect 10, Inc. The court held that framing and hyperlinking of original images for use in an image search engine constituted a fair use of Perfect 10's images because the use was highly transformative, and thus not an infringement of the magazine's copyright ownership of the original images.

<i>Journal of Catalysis</i> Academic journal

The Journal of Catalysis is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal covering research on all aspects of heterogeneous and homogeneous catalysis. It is published by Elsevier and it was established in 1962 by Jan Hendrik de Boer and P. W. Selwood. The current editor-in-chief is Johannes A. Lercher. Other members of the editorial board include Bert Weckhuysen and Joachim Sauer. Former editors-in-chief have been F. S. Stone, W. K. Hall, G. L. Haller, W. N. Delgass, and E. Iglesia.

Art and culture law refers to legal aspects of the visual arts, antiquities, cultural heritage, and the art market and encompasses the safeguarding, regulation, and facilitation of artistic creation, utilization, and promotion. Practitioners of art law navigate various legal areas, including intellectual property, contract, constitutional, tort, tax, commercial, immigration law, estates and wills, cultural property law, and international law to protect the interests of their clients.

<i>Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd.</i> 2006 American copyright law case

Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd., 448 F.3d 605, is a 2006 case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding fair use of images in a pictorial history text. It affirmed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which held at trial that the publisher's use of several images of past Grateful Dead concert posters and tickets, reduced considerably, in a timeline of the band's history was a sufficiently transformative use.

<i>Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust</i> American legal case

Authors Guild v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87, is a United States copyright decision finding search and accessibility uses of digitized books to be fair use.

<i>Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation</i> 2014 U.S. court case on copyright law

Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation, 766 F.3d 756 is a copyright case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, on the question of whether the use of a photograph used by printing and t-shirt company Sconnie Nation, LLC, was a copyright infringement or fair use. The photo in question had been taken by Michael Kienitz and was of Paul Soglin, mayor of Madison, Wisconsin. The photo had been heavily abstracted and colorized for use on a T-shirt that said "Sorry for Partying," which referred to Soglin's attempt to shut down the annual Mifflin Street Block Party that he himself had attended in his youth. The Seventh Circuit held in 2014 that Sconnie Nation's use was fair, applying the fair use statutory defense and relying most heavily on the lack of any effect on the market for the original photograph, rather than on its use as commentary on the mayor. While affirming the grant of summary judgment to the defendants, the opinion notes that Kienitz did not argue that his reputation for only licensing flattering uses had been harmed by the defendants' use, and stated that there was no reason that the defendants needed to use the specific photograph.

Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith is a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with transformative use, a component of fair use, under U.S. copyright law. At issue was the Prince Series created by Andy Warhol based on a photograph of the musician Prince by Lynn Goldsmith. It held Warhol's changes were insufficiently transformative to fall within fair use for commercial purposes, resolving an issue arising from a split between the Second and Ninth circuits among others.

<i>New Era Publications International ApS v. Carol Publishing Group and Jonathan Caven-Atack</i> Scientology copyright case

New Era Publications International ApS v. Carol Publishing Group and Jonathan Caven-Atack (1990), also known as New Era II, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the use of quotations from the works of L. Ron Hubbard in a critical biography of him, A Piece of Blue Sky, written by former Scientologist and academic Jon Atack, was legal fair use under the U.S. Copyright Act, allowing the publication to go forwards after it had been blocked by District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Louis L. Stanton.

<i>Blanch v. Koons</i> American copyright lawsuit

Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244, is a copyright case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2006. Fashion photographer Andrea Blanch sued appropriation artist Jeff Koons for copyright infringement after he used an image of a woman's lower legs taken from one of her photographs in a collage of his own. Koons claimed fair use, arguing he had transformed it sufficiently from its original purpose through his reuse. It is considered a significant case in addressing the latter issue.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Cariou v. Prince, 714F.3d694 (2d Cir.2013).
  2. "La photographie appropriationniste la fin du droit d'auteur? | PM". PM (in French). October 1, 2016. Archived from the original on November 13, 2016. Retrieved November 13, 2016.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Brian Boucher, "Landmark Copyright Lawsuit Cariou v. Prince Is Settled", Art in America , March 18, 2014.
  4. 1 2 Cariou v. Prince, 784F. Supp. 2d337 ( S.D.N.Y. 2011).
  5. See, e.g., the amicus brief submitted by the Warhol Foundation and the Robert Rauschenberg Foundation, which sided with Prince. (Brief, October 2013).
  6. Blanch v. Koons , 467F.3d244 , 255n5( 2nd Cir. 2006).
  7. Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group Inc. , 150F.3d132 , 142( 2nd Cir. 1998).
  8. Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation , 766F.3d756 ( 7th Cir. 2014).
  9. TCA Television Corp. v. McCollum , 839F.3d168 , 181( 2nd Cir. 2016).
  10. Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith , 382F.Supp.312 , 326( S.D.N.Y. 2019)., hereafter Goldsmith I
  11. Goldsmith I, at 325n7
  12. Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith , 11F.4th26 , 38( 2nd Cir. 2021)., hereafter Goldsmith II.
  13. Goldsmith II, at 41
  14. Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith , 598United States Reports___ (2023).

Further reading

Text of Cariou v. Prince, 714 F. 3d 694 (2d Cir. 2013) is available from:  Justia    Google Scholar    Harvard