Cariou v. Prince
784 F. Supp. 2d 337
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Patrick Cariou is a professional photographer who spent six years in Jamaica taking Rastafarian portraits later published in his Yes, Rasta book (2000).
- Richard Prince created Canal Zone paintings by collage-assembling and altering 41 Cariou photos from Yes, Rasta, with some paintings largely comprising entire photos and others using portions.
- Gagosian Gallery, Inc. marketed, sold, and distributed Canal Zone paintings and an exhibition catalog; Lawrence Gagosian supervised the gallery's participation.
- Cariou did not license his photos to Prince or the Gallery; he issued a cease-and-desist letter after learning of the Canal Zone project.
- Celle planned to exhibit and sell Yes, Rasta prints prior to Canal Zone but canceled after learning of the Gagosian show; Cariou planned to issue editions and reprints in the future.
- The Court granted summary judgment to Cariou on liability, fair use, and related claims, and dismissed the conspiracy claim against all defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Prince's Canal Zone paintings are fair use | Cariou contends the use is non-transformative and copying is substantial. | Prince argues his work is transformative appropriation art with a different message. | Not fair use; transformative use insufficient; four-factor weighing against Prince. |
| Whether Cariou's copyright in the Photos is valid and protected | Cariou asserts original, creative photographs deserve protection. | Defendants argue the Photos are mere compilations with minimal creativity. | Photos are creative and protected by copyright. |
| Whether the Gagosian Defendants are liable for infringement | Gagosian aided, marketed, and profited from Prince's infringing works. | Gagosian denies liability for Prince's acts or knowledge. | Direct, vicarious, and contributory infringement established; liable. |
| Whether Cariou's conspiracy claim survives | Conspiracy to infringe offers joint liability for participants. | Conspiracy claims redundant given existing copyright theories. | Conspiracy claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (Supreme Court 1994) (four-factor fair use framework; transformative use weighs factors)
- Castle Rock Entm't v. Carol Pub. Grp., Inc., 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998) (transformative use not automatically granted by derivative status)
- Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006) (transformative use and commentary on ad culture; cultural context)
- Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992) (commentary and parody limits; transformative value required)
- Salinger v. Colting, 641 F. Supp. 2d 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (transformative use analysis; subsequent appellate ruling in part)
- Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006) (transformativeness and derivative work considerations)
- Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, — (2d Cir. 2006) (conceptual framework for fair use as policy-guided analysis)
- Feist Publ'ns., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (Supreme Court 1991) (originality threshold for copyright protection)
- Harper & Row v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (Supreme Court 1985) (nature of the protected work and fair use guidance)
- Warner Bros. Entm't v. RDR Books, 575 F. Supp. 2d 513 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (public interest and market considerations in fair use)