Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Cariou v Prince - 2d Cir 2013

Cariou v Prince - 2d Cir 2013

Ratings: (0)|Views: 12 |Likes:
The 2nd Circuit pretty much overrules Judge Batts.
The 2nd Circuit pretty much overrules Judge Batts.

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: Clancco: Art and Law on Jan 17, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/17/2014

pdf

text

original

 
11-1197-cvPatrick Cariou v. Richard Prince, et al.
1
UNITED
 
STATES
 
COURT
 
OF
 
APPEALS
2
FOR THE
S
ECOND
C
IRCUIT
3____________________4August Term, 20115(Argued: May 21, 2012 Decided: April 25, 2013)6Docket No. 11-1197-cv7____________________8P
ATRICK
C
ARIOU
,9
 Plaintiff-Appellee
,10v.11
ICHARD
P
RINCE
, 12
 Defendant-Appellant,
13G
AGOSIAN
G
ALLERY
,
 
I
 NC
.,
 
L
AWRENCE
G
AGOSIAN
,14
 Defendants-Cross-Defendants-Appellants
.15Before: B.D.
 
P
ARKER 
,
 
H
ALL
,
 
and
 
W
ALLACE
,
Circuit Judges
.
*
16__________________1718Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District o19New York (Batts,
 J 
.), on Plaintiff-Appellee Patrick Cariou’s claim that Defendant-Appellant20Richard Prince’s artworks infringe on Cariou’s registered copyrights in certain photographs. We21conclude that the district court applied the incorrect standard to determine whether Prince’s22artworks make fair use of Cariou’s copyrighted photographs. We further conclude that all but23five of Prince’s works do make fair use of Cariou’s copyrighted photographs. With regard to the24remaining five Prince artworks, we remand to the district court to consider, in the first instance,25whether Prince is entitled to a fair use defense.26REVERSED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED. 27B.D. P
ARKER 
,
 J.
, delivered the opinion of the Court, in which H
ALL
,
 J.
, joined. 28W
ALLACE
,
 J.
, filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. The Honorable J. Clifford Wallace, United States Circuit Judge of the United States
*
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
 
1__________________2J
OSHUA
I.
 
S
CHILLER 
 (Jonathan D. Schiller, George F.3Carpinello,
on the brief 
), Boies, Schiller & Flexner 4LLP, New York, NY,
 for Defendant-Appellant 
5
 Richard Prince
.6H
OLLIS
A
 NNE
G
ONERKA
B
ART
,
 
C
HAYA
W
EINBERG
-7B
RODT
,
 
D
ARA
G.
 
H
AMMERMAN
,
 
A
ZMINA
 N.
 
J
ASANI
,8Withers Bergman LLP, New York, NY,
 for 
9
 Defendants-Appellants Gagosian Gallery, Inc.
and10
 Lawrence Gagosian
.11D
ANIEL
J.
 
B
ROOKS
(Seth E. Spitzer, Eric A. Boden,
on
12
the brief 
), Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP,13New York, NY,
 for Plaintiff-Appellee Patrick 
14
Cariou
.15A
 NTHONY
T.
 
F
ALZONE
,
 
J
ULIE
A.
 
A
HRENS
,
 
D
ANIEL
K.16N
AZER 
,
 
Stanford Law School Center for Internet17and Society, Stanford, CA; V
IRGINIA
UTLEDGE
,18New York, NY; Z
ACHARY
J.
 
A
LINDER 
,
 
J
OHN
A.19P
OLITO
,
 
Bingham McCutchen LLP, San Francisco,20CA,
 for Amicus The Andy Warhol Foundation for 
21
the Visual Arts
.22J
OSEPH
C.
 
G
RATZ
,
 
Durie Tangri, LLP, San Francisco,23CA; O
LIVER
M
ETZGER 
, Google Inc., Mountain24View, CA,
 
 for Amicus Google Inc.
25C
LIFFORD
M.
 
S
LOAN
,
 
B
RADLEY
A.
 
LEIN
,
 
Skadden,26Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Washington,27DC,
 for Amici The Association of Art Museum
28
 Directors, The Art Institute of Chicago, The
29
 Indianapolis Museum of Art, The Metropolitan
30
 Museum of Art, The Museum of Modern Art,
31
 Museum Associates d.b.a. Los Angeles County
32
 Museum of Art, The New Museum, The Solomon R.
33
Guggenheim Foundation, The Walker Art Center,
34and
The Whitney Museum of American Art 
.35M
ICHAEL
W
ILLIAMS
,
 
D
ALE
M.
 
C
ENDALI
,
 
C
LAUDIA
36
AY
, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC,
 for 
2
 
1
 Amici American Society of Media Photographers,
2
 Inc.,
and
 Picture Archive Council of America
.3______________________________________________________________________________ 4B
ARRINGTON
D.
 
P
ARKER 
,
 
Circuit Judge
:5In 2000, Patrick Cariou published
Yes Rasta
, a book of classical portraits and landscape6photographs that he took over the course of six years spent living among Rastafarians in Jamaica. 7Richard Prince altered and incorporated several of Cariou’s
Yes Rasta
 photographs into a series8of paintings and collages, called
Canal Zone
, that he exhibited in 2007 and 2008, first at the9Eden Rock hotel in Saint Barthélemy (“St. Barth’s”) and later at New York’s Gagosian Gallery.
1
10In addition, Gagosian published and sold an exhibition catalog that contained reproductions of 11Prince’s paintings and images from Prince’s workshop.12Cariou sued Prince and Gagosian, alleging that Princes
Canal Zone
works and exhibition13catalog infringed on Cariou’s copyrights in the incorporated
Yes Rasta
 photographs. The14defendants raised a fair use defense. After the parties cross-moved for summary judgment, the15United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Batts,
 J 
.) granted Cariou’s16motion, denied the defendants’, and entered a permanent injunction. It compelled the defendants17to deliver to Cariou all infringing works that had not yet been sold, for him to destroy, sell, or 18otherwise dispose of.19Prince and Gagosian principally contend on appeal that Princes work is transformative20and constitutes fair use of Cariou’s copyrighted photographs, and that the district court imposed21an incorrect legal standard when it concluded that, in order to qualify for a fair use defense, We refer to Gagosian Gallery and its owner Lawrence Gagosian collectively as
1
“Gagosian” or the “Gallery.” 3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->