Muhammad-Ali v. Final Call, Inc.
832 F.3d 755
7th Cir.2016Background
- Jesus Muhammad‑Ali painted a portrait of Louis Farrakhan in 1984 and registered the copyright in 1986.
- The Final Call (Nation of Islam newspaper) sold lithographic reproductions of that portrait; it admitted selling 115 copies between 2010–2013 and earlier had inventory dating back prior to 1993.
- Ali sued in 2013 for copyright infringement; The Final Call initially asserted implied‑license and laches defenses but waived them pretrial and later relied on an argument that the copies were authorized.
- At a one‑day bench trial the only contested issue was authorization; Ali testified he had not authorized lithographs to The Final Call and had written a 2008 letter seeking a licensing relationship; The Final Call presented no documentary proof of authorization or chain of title.
- The district court concluded Ali bore the burden to prove the copying was unauthorized and found authorization based on excerpts of Ali’s testimony and conduct; Ali appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie elements of copyright infringement | Ali: must prove ownership and copying; not required to prove lack of authorization | Final Call: district court erred in omitting "unauthorized" from the plaintiff's prima facie burden | Court: plaintiff need only prove ownership and copying; authorization is an affirmative defense for defendant to prove |
| Burden of proof on authorization/license | Ali: burden lies with defendant asserting license | Final Call: suggested plaintiff must prove copying was unauthorized (relying on Hobbs misquote) | Court: burden to prove license/authorization is on defendant (affirmative defense under Rule 8) |
| Implied license defense | Ali: no evidence of license to The Final Call; commission was from Farrakhan to Ali, delivered to Farrakhan | Final Call: argued implied license or practical identity of interests between Farrakhan and The Final Call | Court: no evidence Final Call requested the work, received delivery, or was intended recipient; implied license not shown |
| First‑sale defense | Ali: not raised; would be waived and requires proof that copies were lawfully made | Final Call: district court considered first‑sale; Final Call relied on it | Court: Final Call never pleaded it; even if considered, Final Call failed to prove statutory requirements for first sale |
Key Cases Cited
- Hobbs v. John, 722 F.3d 1089 (7th Cir.) (discussed transcription error regarding prima facie standard)
- Peters v. West, 692 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2012) (proper articulation of prima facie Copyright Act elements)
- Feist Publ’ns v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1991) (copying of original, protectable elements establishes infringement)
- I.A.E., Inc. v. Shaver, 74 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 1996) (license is an affirmative defense)
- Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Skylink Techs., Inc., 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (burden of proving authorization falls on defendant)
- Quality King Distribs., Inc. v. L’anza Research Int’l, Inc., 523 U.S. 135 (U.S. 1998) (first‑sale defense applies only to lawfully made copies)