Patrick Cariou v. Richard Prince
714 F.3d 694
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Cariou published Yes Rasta (2000), a book of portraits/landscapes from Jamaica; Prince created Canal Zone artworks incorporating Yes Rasta images; Gagosian Gallery exhibited and published a catalog of Canal Zone; Cariou sued for copyright infringement seeking fair use defense from Prince and Gagosian; district court granted summary judgment for Cariou and injunction; this appeal holds most Prince works are fair use but remands on five works.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Prince’s works are transformative fair use under §107. | Cariou argued most Canal Zone works were not transformative. | Prince argued works transform original imagery and need not comment on Cariou. | Twenty-five works are transformative fair use; five remanded for proper analysis. |
| Whether the district court erred by requiring commentary on Cariou to qualify as fair use. | Cariou contends the district court set an incorrect standard. | Prince/Gagosian contend no such commentary is required. | Correct standard is broader; no requirement to comment on original. |
| Whether the district court properly addressed market effect under the fourth factor. | Cariou claimed market harm from secondary use; diminished potential derivatives. | Prince/Gagosian argued distinct markets and audiences mitigate this factor. | Markets not usurped; factor weighs in favor of Prince for most works. |
| Whether Gagosian is liable as vicarious/contributory infringer for Prince's works. | Cariou alleges secondary liability for gallery. | Gagosian argues no direct infringement by gallery on those works. | Not liable for twenty-five works; remand on five works if Prince liable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (U.S. 1994) (transformative use; purpose of use matters; not required to comment on original)
- Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006) (transformative use and amount/quality of material; open-ended inquiry)
- Castle Rock Entm’t, Inc. v. Carol Publ’g Grp., Inc., 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998) (fair use factors; transformative use; not all uses require commentary)
- Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1985) (fair use; limited publication rights; context of use)
- Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners, 682 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2012) (parody/satire; use of original to create new work; evidence context)
- NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Inst., 364 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2004) (usurping derivative markets; market impact analysis)
- Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 137 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 1998) (transformative use; artistic transformation standards)
- Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006) (copying of entire work can be fair use depending on purpose)
- Twin Peaks Prods., Inc. v. Publ’ns Int'l Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993) (consideration of purpose/character for transformative use)