Gwinn v. City of Chicago
1:23-cv-01823
N.D. Ill.Mar 31, 2025Background
- Dominic Gwinn, a freelance photojournalist, filmed a 102-second video (the “Work”) of a protest involving violence against Chicago Police Department (CPD) officers in Grant Park on June 17, 2020.
- Gwinn posted the Work on Twitter and refused to license it to certain media outlets despite inquiries.
- The CPD, led by Superintendent David Brown, copied nearly the entire Work into a compilation video shown at a June 20, 2020 press conference, without Gwinn’s permission or attribution.
- The compilation was further distributed to media outlets and posted on the City's social media, omitting Gwinn’s identifying information linked to his original tweet.
- Gwinn sued the City of Chicago and Brown for (1) copyright infringement and (2) removal of copyright management information (CMI), seeking summary judgment; both sides filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Copyright Infringement | City copied the Work without authorization, violating exclusive rights. | Use was fair use because it informed public on matter of public concern, was non-commercial. | Not fair use; summary judgment for plaintiff. |
| Fair Use (Factor 1: Purpose/Character) | Use was not transformative and had same purpose as Gwinn’s–to report news. | Compilation with added graphics/commentary changed context, making it transformative. | Purpose/character identical; not transformative. |
| Fair Use (Other Factors) | Amount used was excessive (almost entire work); market effect unclear; factual work favors fair use. | Defendants highlighted factual nature; market for work was weak/not harmed; amount used reasonable. | Factual nature favors fair use; amount weighs against; market effect neutral. |
| Removal of CMI | City intentionally removed CMI (authorship info in tweet) when compiling video. | Twitter account info is not CMI; lacked required intent (double scienter) for CMI removal violation. | Tweet info is CMI; City liable, Brown not liable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (1985) (Fair use more likely for factual than fictional works)
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (Transformative use key factor in fair use; not all copying is fair use)
- Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (Permissible non-transformative fair use in time-shifting of TV programs)
- Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) (Market effect crucial in fair use analysis; factual work dissemination)
- Andy Warhol Found. for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508 (2023) (Focus on purpose/character in fair use; transformation must differ substantially from original)