throbber
Case 1:19-cv-04958-VSB Document 22 Filed 06/01/20 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19-CV-4958 (VSB)
`
`OPINION & ORDER
`
`
`
`- against -
`
`
`
`TOWNSQUARE MEDIA, INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`---------------------------------------------------------
`X
`
`:
`REBECCA FAY WALSH,
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`:
`---------------------------------------------------------
`X
`
`Appearances:
`
`Richard Liebowitz
`Liebowitz Law Firm, PLLC
`Valley Stream, New York
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`Rachel F. Strom
`James E. Doherty
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`New York, New York
`Counsel for Defendant
`
`
`VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Rebecca Fay Walsh brings this action against Townsquare Media, Inc., asserting
`
`a claim of copyright infringement in connection with Defendant’s unlicensed publication in an
`
`online article (the “Article”) of a copyrighted photograph (the “Photograph”) taken by Plaintiff.
`
`Before me is Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Because Defendant’s
`
`publication of the Photograph constituted fair use, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the
`
`pleadings is GRANTED.
`
`
`
`
`
`6/1/2020
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-04958-VSB Document 22 Filed 06/01/20 Page 2 of 20
`
`
`
`Factual Background1
`
`Plaintiff is a Brooklyn-based professional photographer who licenses her photographs to
`
`online and print media for a fee. (Am. Compl. ¶ 5.)2 Defendant is a Delaware-incorporated
`
`business that owns and operates an online website called XXL Mag (“XXL”), located at the URL
`
`www.XXLMag.com. (Id. ¶¶ 6–7.)
`
`On September 5, 2018, Plaintiff photographed rapper and celebrity Cardi B at a Tom
`
`Ford Fashion show in New York City. (Id. ¶ 10.) At around the time of the fashion show, she
`
`captured numerous photographs of Cardi B, and then made them available for license through
`
`Getty Images, a stock photography agency. (Id. ¶ 15; id. Ex. C). Among those photographs is
`
`the one at issue in this action, reproduced below in resized but uncropped form:
`
`
`1 The following facts are taken from the Amended Complaint and its accompanying exhibits, as well as the PDF of
`the full Article that has been submitted by Defendant. I assume the factual allegations set forth in those submissions
`to be true for purposes of this motion. See Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen Inc., 496 F.3d 229, 237 (2d Cir. 2007);
`see also Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002) (A complaint is “deemed to include any
`written instrument attached to it as an exhibit or any statements or documents incorporated in it by reference. . . .
`Even where a document is not incorporated by reference, the court may nevertheless consider it where the complaint
`relies heavily upon its terms and effect, which renders the document integral to the complaint.” (internal quotations
`and citations omitted)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) (“A copy of any written instrument which is an exhibit to a
`pleading is a part thereof for all purposes.”). As discussed in further detail in this section, Defendant contends, and
`Plaintiff does not dispute, that the original Article had three embedded images, the third of which contained a
`portion of the Photograph. (Ans. Ex. C.) Plaintiff attached to the Amended Complaint a partial screenshot of the
`Article as it appeared online, with the headline, article text, and the first embedded image. (See Am. Compl. Ex. D.)
`Plaintiff separately includes a screenshot of the third embedded image—the one that contained the Photograph—as
`Exhibit C. (See id. Ex. C.) Defendant submitted, as Exhibit C to the Declaration of Rachel F. Strom, a screenshot of
`the entire Article, featuring the same text as Plaintiff’s version but including all three embedded images. (See Doc.
`16-3.) Plaintiff does not contest the authenticity or accuracy of these screenshots or suggest that I should not
`consider them. In light of these facts, and in light of the fact that Plaintiff relies extensively on the Article—as the
`source of the publication of the Photograph that gave rise to its claims—I consider Defendant’s more complete
`version of the Article. I also find it appropriate to consider the current version of the Article as it appears online,
`given that Plaintiff herself provided the URL and makes an allegation about the Article in its current form, making it
`“integral” to her Complaint, Chambers, 282 F.3d 147. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 17; Cardi B Partners with Tom Ford
`for New Lipstick Shade, XXL Mag, https://www.xxlmag.com/news/2018/09/cardi-b-tom-ford-lipstick-shade-named-
`after-her/ (last visited April 2, 2020).) Moreover, “[i]t is generally proper to take judicial notice of articles and
`[websites] published on the [i]nternet.” Harty v. Nyack Motor Hotel Inc., No. 19-CV-1322 (KMK), 2020 WL
`1140783, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2020) (quoting Magnoni v. Smith & Laquercia, LLP, 701 F. Supp. 2d 497, 501
`(S.D.N.Y. 2010), aff’d, 483 F. App’x 613 (2d Cir. 2012), and collecting cases). My references to Plaintiff’s
`allegations should not be construed as a finding as to their veracity, and I make no such findings.
`Ans.” refers to Defendant’s Answer to the Amended Complaint, filed on July 31, 2019. (Doc. 12.)
`2 “Am. Compl.” refers to the Amended Complaint, filed on July 17, 2019. (Doc. 11.)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-04958-VSB Document 22 Filed 06/01/20 Page 3 of 20
`
`
`
`(Id. Ex. A.) Plaintiff has a copyright to the Photograph, which is registered with the United
`
`States Copyright Office. (Id. ¶ 11.)
`
`
`
`On September 10, 2018, Townsquare ran an article on XXL Mag entitled CardiB
`
`Partners with Tom Ford for New Lipstick Shade, available at the URL
`
`https://www.xxlmag.com/news/2018/09/cardi-b-tom-ford-lipstick-shade-named-after-her/. (Id.
`
`¶ 13.) The text of the Article read as follows:
`
`Cardi B is having a busy 2018 New York Fashion Week. After allegedly getting into a
`fight with Nicki Minaj, the Invasion of Privacy rapper is now getting her own shade of
`lipstick from Tom Ford.
`
`The Tom Ford Beauty brand broke the news on Sunday (Sept. 9), posting an image of the
`bold blue shade and Cardi’s name on Instagram. “Meet Cardi. #TFBOYSANDGIRLS
`#TFLIP #TOMFORDBEAUTY,” the caption of the post reads.
`
`Cardi also celebrated the news on IG3, re-posting the Tom Ford post and adding, “Thank
`you so much @tomford and @tomfordbeatuy!!! So excited for this and what’s to come.”
`
`Just the latest shade in Tom Ford’s Lips & Boys collection, the new Cardi shade follows
`the brand’s trend of naming lipsticks after other celebrities such as Julianne [Moore],
`Dakota [Johnson] and Naomi [Campbell]. There’s no word yet when the lipstick inspired
`by Cardi will be released.
`
`
`3 “IG” is apparently a shorthand for “Instagram,” a social media platform on which users post photographs and
`captions.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-04958-VSB Document 22 Filed 06/01/20 Page 4 of 20
`
`As expected, the decision to name a lipstick after Cardi following the New York Fashion
`Week incident has led to a heated debate on the original Instagram post. While some
`fans were excited about the upcoming product, other’s felt that Cardi doesn't deserve to
`have a lipstick named after her.
`
`But Cardi doesn’t seemed to bothered by that. In another Instagram post, the rapper
`claimed the upcoming lipstick has already sold out, adding, “Sorry :/.....”
`
`In footage from the fight, the “Be Careful” rapper can be seen throwing a shoe in the
`direction of someone, although it’s hard to make out if it’s actually Minaj. Cardi can also
`be heard yelling at someone for talking about her daughter, Kulture. “Write some shit
`about my daughter again,” Cardi says.
`
`While it was reported that Bardi’s fight was with the Queen artist, Cardi reportedly ended
`up fighting former Love & Hip Hop: New York star Rah Ali.
`
`Check out the Tom Ford Instagram post below.
`
`(Ans. Ex. C (alterations and errors in original).) Beneath the last sentence of the article, XXL
`
`Mag embedded the three Instagram posts that were described in the Article.4 (Id. ¶ 13; Ans.
`
`¶ 13.) Plaintiff does not allege that the Post was embedded, alleging only that Defendant
`
`“expropriated” the Photograph and “displayed” it in the Article. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 15.)
`
`However, Defendant asserts that the Post was “embedded” (Ans. ¶ 13), and Plaintiff does not
`
`dispute this allegation. Moreover, in the current version of the Article, the two Instagram posts
`
`that remain displayed link directly to Instagram when clicked on, indicating they have been
`
`embedded. See Article, https://www.xxlmag.com/news/2018/09/cardi-b-tom-ford-lipstick-
`
`shade-named-after-her/ (last visited April 2, 2020). The first post, by account “tomfordbeauty,”
`
`announced the lipstick collaboration. (Strom Decl. Ex. C, at 3.)5 The second post, from Cardi
`
`
`4 An “embedded” image is one that “hyperlink[s] . . . to [a] third-party website.” Goldman v. Breitbart News
`Network, LLC, 302 F. Supp. 3d 585, 587 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). “To embed an image, [a] coder or web designer . . .
`add[s] an ‘embed code’ to the HTML instructions; this code directs the browser to the third-party server to retrieve
`the image.” Id. Thus, the image appears on the new page, but links to and remains hosted on the third-party server
`or website. See id.
`5 “Strom Decl.” refers to the Declaration of Rachel F. Strom in support of Defendant’s motion for judgment on the
`pleadings, filed on August 9, 2019. (Doc. 16.)
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-04958-VSB Document 22 Filed 06/01/20 Page 5 of 20
`
`B’s account, reproduced the post by tomfordbeauty in a screenshot, and thanked Tom Ford and
`
`tomfordbeauty. (Id. at 4.) The third post (the “Post”), from Cardi B, was a composite image that
`
`consisted of an image of the Tom Ford lipstick on the left, the Photograph on the right, and a
`
`header reading “Cardi B’s Tom Ford Lipstick has already SOLD OUT!!!” (Id. at 5.) Above the
`
`composite image was Cardi B’s username, her follower count, and a link entitled “View Profile.”
`
`(Id.) Below the composite image was a link entitled “View More on Instagram,” the number of
`
`“likes,” and Cardi B’s caption for the post: “Sorry :/ …” (Id. at 5.) Below the caption was a
`
`link entitled “view all [] comments” and below that, a link entitled “Add a comment . . . .” (Id.)
`
`The Post appeared as follows:
`
`(Id. Ex. C; Strom Decl. Ex. C.) After Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, Defendant removed the Post
`
`from the Article. (Am. Compl. ¶ 17.)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-04958-VSB Document 22 Filed 06/01/20 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`
`Procedural History
`
`Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint on May 28, 2019. (Doc. 1.) The
`
`complaint was administratively rejected by the Clerk’s Office, and Plaintiff refiled the complaint
`
`on May 29, 2019. (Doc. 4.) Defendant filed its answer on June 26, 2019. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff
`
`filed an Amended Complaint on July 17, 2019. (Doc. 11.) Defendant filed its Answer to the
`
`Amended Complaint on July 31, 2019. (Doc. 12.)
`
`On August 9, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, (Doc. 14),
`
`with a memorandum of law, declaration, and exhibits in support, (Docs. 15–16). Plaintiff filed
`
`her memorandum of law in opposition on September 6, 2019. (Doc. 19.) Defendant filed its
`
`reply on September 24, 2019. (Doc. 21.)
`
` Legal Standard
`
`Rule 12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay
`
`trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). In deciding a
`
`motion for judgment on the pleadings, a district court must “employ the same standard
`
`applicable to Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, accepting all factual allegations in the [non-
`
`moving party’s pleading] as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party’s
`
`favor.” Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal
`
`quotation marks omitted). Therefore, to survive a motion pursuant to Rule 12(c), a complaint
`
`must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible
`
`on its face.” Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 160 (2d Cir. 2010). Under Rule 12(c), a party is
`
`entitled to judgment on the pleadings “only if it has established that no material issue of fact
`
`remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Juster Assocs. v.
`
`City of Rutland, 901 F.2d 266, 269 (2d Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Sellers
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-04958-VSB Document 22 Filed 06/01/20 Page 7 of 20
`
`v. M.C. Floor Crafters, Inc., 842 F.2d 639, 642 (2d Cir. 1988) (noting that judgment on the
`
`pleadings “is appropriate where material facts are undisputed and where a judgment on the
`
`merits is possible merely by considering the contents of the pleadings”).
`
`On a Rule 12(c) motion, “the court considers the complaint, the answer, any written
`
`documents attached to them, and any matter of which the court can take judicial notice for the
`
`factual background of the case.” L-7 Designs, 647 F.3d at 422 (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted). The complaint is “deemed to include any written instrument attached to it as an
`
`exhibit, materials incorporated in it by reference, and documents that, although not incorporated
`
`by reference, are integral to the complaint.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
` Discussion
`
`A.
`
`Applicable Law
`
`The Copyright Act grants a copyright owner the exclusive rights to authorize the
`
`reproduction, distribution, and preparation of derivatives of the owner’s work. 17 U.S.C. § 106.
`
`These rights, however, are in “inevitable tension” with “the ability of authors, artists, and the
`
`rest of us to express them- or ourselves by reference to the works of others.” Blanch v.
`
`Koons, 467 F.3d 244, 250 (2d Cir. 2006). The doctrine of fair use mediates between these two
`
`sets of interests and infuses copyright law with the necessary “breathing space.” Id. (quoting
`
`Campbell v. Acuff–Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994). Under this doctrine, “a
`
`defendant who otherwise would have violated one or more of these exclusive rights may avoid
`
`liability if [it] can establish that [it] made ‘fair use’ of the copyrighted material.” Swatch Grp.
`
`Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P., 756 F.3d 73, 81 (2d Cir. 2014). “To evaluate whether a
`
`particular use qualifies as ‘fair use,’ [a court] must engage in ‘an open-ended and context-
`
`sensitive inquiry’” that focuses on four non-exclusive factors set forth in the Copyright Act: (1)
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-04958-VSB Document 22 Filed 06/01/20 Page 8 of 20
`
`the purpose and character of the use, (2) the nature of the work, (3) the amount and substantiality
`
`of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and (4) the effect of the use
`
`upon the potential market for or value of copyrighted work. Id. (quoting Blanch, 467 F.3d at
`
`250). The Copyright Act also provides examples of purposes for copying that would constitute
`
`fair use: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. 17 U.S.C. §
`
`107. These examples, however, are “illustrative and not limitative,” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 577,
`
`and the court’s “task is not to be simplified with bright-line rules,” Swatch, 756 F.3d at 81
`
`(quoting id.).
`
`Fair use is an affirmative defense, and so a defendant accused of copyright infringement
`
`bears the burden of showing that its use of a work was fair. Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804
`
`F.3d 202, 213 (2d Cir. 2015). The determination of fair use is typically a “mixed question of fact
`
`and law.” Swatch, 756 F.3d at 81. However, it may be adjudicated on a Rule 12(c) motion
`
`“where the facts necessary to establish the defense are evident on the face of the complaint.”
`
`Kelly-Brown v. Winfrey, 717 F.3d 295, 308 (2d Cir. 2013); see also In re Lehr Constr. Corp.,
`
`666 F. App’x 66, 68 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order). Accordingly, numerous courts in this
`
`district have “resolved the issue of fair use on a motion for judgment on the pleadings by
`
`conducting a side-by-side comparison of the works at issue.” Lombardo v. Dr. Seuss
`
`Enterprises, L.P., 279 F. Supp. 3d 497, 504 (S.D.N.Y. 2017), aff’d, 729 F. App’x 131 (2d Cir.
`
`2018).
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-04958-VSB Document 22 Filed 06/01/20 Page 9 of 20
`
`B.
`
`Application
`
`Plaintiff asserts that Defendant infringed on her copyright by reproducing the Photograph
`
`on its website without licensing it. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 19–24.) Defendant does not dispute, for
`
`purposes of this motion, that it reproduced the Photograph,6 but contends that its use of the
`
`Photograph was fair. (Def.’s Mem. ¶ 8.)7 To assess whether Defendant’s reproduction of the
`
`Photograph was a fair use, I consider each of the four factors in turn.
`
`1. The Purpose and Character of the Use
`
`The first statutory factor—“[t]he heart of the fair use inquiry” in this Circuit—calls on the
`
`court to examine “the purpose and character of the use,” including whether the use “is of a
`
`commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.” On Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 246
`
`F.3d 152, 174 (2d Cir. 2001), as amended (May 15, 2001); see also Bloch, 467 F.3d at 251. The
`
`focus of this factor is whether the use “merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or
`
`instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with
`
`new expression, meaning, or message; it asks, in other words, whether and to what extent the
`
`new work is transformative.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579 (citation and internal quotation marks
`
`omitted). “[A] transformative use is one that communicates something new and different from
`
`the original or expands its utility, thus serving copyright’s overall objective of contributing to
`
`public knowledge.” Authors Guild, 804 F.3d at 214. “[T]he critical inquiry is whether the new
`
`work uses the copyrighted material itself for a purpose, or imbues it with a character, different
`
`
`6 I note that the Second Circuit has not addressed whether and when embedding an image that is hosted elsewhere
`constitutes “display” within the meaning of the Copyright Act, and only a handful of district courts across the
`country have discussed the question. See Goldman v. Breitbart News Network, LLC, 302 F. Supp. 3d 585, 591
`(S.D.N.Y. 2018) (discussing cases and concluding that on the facts at bar, “when defendants caused the embedded
`Tweets to appear on their websites, their actions violated plaintiff’s exclusive display right.”) However, Defendant
`has not raised this issue, and I do not address it.
`7 “Def.’s Mem.” refers to the Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Townsquare Media, Inc.’s Motion for
`Judgment on the Pleadings, filed on August 9, 2019. (Doc. 15.)
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-04958-VSB Document 22 Filed 06/01/20 Page 10 of 20
`
`from that for which it was created.” TCA Television Corp. v. McCollum, 839 F.3d 168, 180 (2d
`
`Cir. 2016).
`
`While the Copyright Act suggests that use of a copyrighted work for news reporting
`
`purposes is likely to constitute fair use, “a news reporting purpose by no means guarantees a
`
`finding of fair use.” Swatch, 756 F.3d at 85. “After all, “[t]he promise of copyright would be an
`
`empty one if it could be avoided merely by dubbing the infringement a fair use ‘news
`
`report.’” Id. (quoting Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 557.) Thus, courts have held that it is not fair
`
`to “use [] an image solely to present the content of that image, in a commercial capacity,” or to
`
`otherwise use it “for the precise reason it was created.” BWP Media USA, Inc. v. Gossip Cop
`
`Media, Inc., 196 F. Supp. 3d 395, 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). For example, it is not fair use to
`
`republish a photograph of a celebrity or public figure intended to generically accompany an
`
`article about that person or to describe the event depicted in the photograph. See Barcroft, 297 F.
`
`Supp. 3d at 352; BWP Media USA, Inc., 196 F. Supp. 3d at 407; Otto v. Hearst Commc’ns, Inc.,
`
`345 F. Supp. 3d 412, 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2018).8 Such uses “merely supersede[] the objects of the
`
`original creation.” See Bloch, 467 F.3d at 251. However, use of a copyrighted photograph may
`
`be appropriate where “the copyrighted work is itself the subject of the story, transforming the
`
`function of the work in the new context.” Barcroft, 297 F. Supp. 3d at 352. “For instance, a
`
`news report about a video that has gone viral on the Internet might fairly display a screenshot or
`
`clip from that video to illustrate what all the fuss is about. See, e.g., Konangataa v. Am.
`
`Broadcastingcompanies, Inc., No. 16-CV-7382 (LAK), 2017 WL 2684067, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June
`
`
`8 These three cases were decided upon a fuller record than the instant case, but the courts’ decisions on the first fair
`use factor ultimately rested on a comparison of the work and the publication that used the work. Barcroft, 297 F.
`Supp. 3d 339 (after bench trial); BWP Media USA, Inc., 196 F. Supp. 3d at 407 (after bench trial); Otto, 345 F. Supp.
`3d at 427–30 (on summary judgment).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-04958-VSB Document 22 Filed 06/01/20 Page 11 of 20
`
`21, 2017). Similarly, a depiction of a controversial photograph might fairly accompany a work
`
`of commentary or criticism about the artistic merit or appropriateness of the photograph. See,
`
`e.g., Nunez v. Caribbean Int’l News Corp., 235 F.3d 18, 25 (1st Cir. 2000).”9 Id. Courts have
`
`also found fair use in cases in which a website published a screenshot of an article from another
`
`publication that contained a copyrighted photograph, alongside criticism of the article. Yang,
`
`405 F. Supp. 3d at 544 (deciding a motion to dismiss); Clark, 2019 WL 1448448, at *4 (same).
`
`Applying these principles and drawing all inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, this factor
`
`favors Defendant because the Article uses the Photograph for an entirely different purpose than
`
`originally intended. The Photograph was taken to “depict Cardi B at Tom Ford’s fashion show.”
`
`(Pl.’s Opp. 13.)10 See also Barcroft, 297 F. Supp. 3d 339, 352 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (“Paparazzi
`
`photographs . . . are designed to document the comings and goings of celebrities, illustrate their
`
`fashion and lifestyle choices, and accompany gossip and news articles about their lives.”).
`
`However, as is apparent on the face of the Article, Defendant did not publish the Photograph
`
`simply to present its content. It did not use the Photograph as a generic image of Cardi B to
`
`accompany an article about Cardi B, see BWP Media USA, 196 F. Supp. 3d at 407, or as an
`
`image of her at Tom Ford’s fashion show alongside an article about the fashion show, see
`
`Barcroft, 297 F. Supp. 3d at 352; Otto v. Hearst Commc’ns, Inc., 345 F. Supp. 3d 412, 429
`
`
`9 In Nunez, the plaintiff took photographs of the 1997 Miss Puerto Rico Universe, which generated public
`controversy about whether they were “pornographic” and whether the pageant winner should be permitted to retain
`her crown. 235 F.3d at 21. The defendant published three of the photographs alongside articles about the
`controversy. Id. The First Circuit held that the first prong weighed in favor of fair use because while the
`photographs were initially created to appear in modeling portfolios, defendant published them “to place its news
`articles in context; as the district court pointed out, ‘the pictures were the story.’ It would have been much more
`difficult to explain the controversy without reproducing the photographs.” Id. at 23–24.
`10 “Pl.’s Opp.” refers to Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the
`Pleadings, filed on September 6, 2019. (Doc. 19.)
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-04958-VSB Document 22 Filed 06/01/20 Page 12 of 20
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 2018).11 Rather, Defendant published the Post, which incidentally contained the
`
`Photograph, because the Post—or, put differently, the fact that Cardi B had disseminated the
`
`Post—was the very thing the Article was reporting on.12
`
`The Article begins by juxtaposing the news of the lipstick collaboration with rumors that
`
`Cardi B had recently gotten into a fight with Nicki Minaj, another rapper. It goes on to describe
`
`the social media posts by Tom Ford and Cardi B introducing the collaboration, and the ensuing
`
`“heated debate” among fans about that announcement, in light of the rumors about the fight.
`
`Then the Article presents Cardi B’s reaction to that “heated debate”: her Instagram post
`
`reporting that the lipstick has sold out, with the caption: “Sorry:/ …” Finally, the Article reports
`
`additional facts about the rumored fight, then embeds the relevant Instagram posts, one of which
`
`happens to include the Photograph because the original poster—Cardi B—included it. The
`
`Article does not mention the Photograph, nor does the Photograph in and of itself pertain to
`
`anything reported on in the Article. Thus, Defendant’s inclusion of the Photograph as part of the
`
`Post was not simply to “present the content of that image”—Cardi B, or perhaps Cardi B at the
`
`
`11 The other cases cited by Plaintiff are also inapposite for similar reasons. (See Pl.’s Opp. 10.) In Ferdman v. CBS
`Interactive, Inc., 17-cv-1317 (PGG), 2018 WL 4572241, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2018), the court granted
`summary judgment dismissing fair use defense as to one of two allegedly infringing uses where defendant “merely
`reported that “[t]he upcoming Marvel Movie Spider-Man: Homecoming is currently filming in New York, and the
`steady stream of on-set images and videos continues,” then included a gallery of these images at the end of the
`article. “In other words, the Gallery Article involves ‘the use of an image solely to present the content of that
`image.’ BWP Media, 196 F.Supp.3d at 407. Such a use is not transformative.” Id. Similarly, in Psihoyos v.
`National Examiner, 97-cv-7625 (JSM), 1998 WL 336655, *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 1998), defendant, a tabloid,
`published a copyrighted photograph of plaintiff in front of his modified “art car” alongside an article about art cars
`in America and a caption reading “Larry Fuente’s fintastic Mad Cad is inlaid with beads, rhinestones, shoe soles and
`toy soldiers—and highlighted with fabulous flamingo-adorned tail fins.” The court denied defendant’s motion to
`dismiss, which it treated as a motion for summary judgment, because “[t]he Examiner’s use [was] not transformative
`. . . its piece uses the photo to show what it depicts.” Id. These cases are distinguishable for the same reasons BWP
`Media, Barcroft, and Otto are distinguishable.
`12 Plaintiff contends at one point that Defendant used the Photograph merely to illustrate “a news report about Cardi
`B at Tom Ford’s fashion show.” (Def.’s Opp. 13.) This is manifestly untrue; although the Article generally
`mentions “Fashion Week” being “busy” for Cardi B, it does not mention the Tom Ford fashion show in particular.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-04958-VSB Document 22 Filed 06/01/20 Page 13 of 20
`
`Tom Ford fashion show, i.e. the purpose the Photograph was created for13—Gossip Cop Media,
`
`Inc., 196 F. Supp. 3d at 407. Rather, Cardi B’s making and dissemination of the Post, not the
`
`image that was posted, was “itself the subject of the story.” Barcroft, 297 F. Supp. 3d at 352. In
`
`other words, Defendant published the Post in order to provide readers with the original social
`
`media interactions reported on by the Article,14 and included the Photograph as a necessary part
`
`of the Post.15 Indeed, no other image—not even “the Photograph [itself] as a standalone
`
`image”—would have fulfilled the same purpose as the Post itself, see Clark, 2019 WL
`
`1448448.16 Merely displaying the Post without the Photograph would have been nonsensical in
`
`appearance as well as potentially impossible, given that the Post is embedded and hyperlinked,
`
`rather than inserted as an image. The Photograph’s function was wholly “transform[ed] . . . in
`
`[its] new context,” Barcroft, 297 F. Supp. 3d at 352, and as a result the Article’s publication of
`
`the Post in no way “merely supersedes” the original work. See Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579.
`
`
`13 Although Cardi B may have used the Photograph in this illustrative manner, the purpose her underlying use,
`whether licensed or unlicensed, has no bearing on whether Defendant’s use of the Photograph for an entirely
`different function and purpose was fair.
`14 A further logical inference of Defendant’s purpose is that Defendant sought to link readers to the relevant posts;
`however, Defendant does not explicitly make this argument.
`
`15 Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s use was not transformative because it “did not report on any political or social
`controversy that arose because of the very existence of the Photograph itself.” (Def.’s Mem. 7.) “As the United
`States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has instructed, ‘[t]he law imposes no requirement that a work
`comment on the original or its author in order to be considered transformative.’” Clark, 2019 WL 1448448, at *3
`(quoting Cariou, 714 F.3d at 706).
`16 Plaintiff alleges in her Amended Complaint that after she filed the initial Complaint, Defendant “replaced the Post
`with another image of Cardi B that it licensed through Getty Images, demonstrating that Defendant’s unauthorized
`use of the Photograph in the first instance was not integral to the message it sought to convey.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 17.)
`In support of this statement, Plaintiff cites to Exhibit D, but Exhibit D is simply a screenshot of the Article that
`includes a portion of the Instagram post from Tom Ford, but is cut off below that and includes no other images or
`Posts. Thus, Exhibit D does not support Plaintiff’s allegation. Indeed, the Article in its current form contradicts it:
`it includes only the Tom Ford Instagram post and Cardi B’s post thanking Tom Ford, but does not contain any other
`images. This suggests that Defendant simply deleted the Post and did not insert any alternative image—or if it did
`insert an alternative image, ultimately deleted it—lending further support for the idea that the Post was the only
`image that made sense in context.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-04958-VSB Document 22 Filed 06/01/20 Page 14 of 20
`
`Judge Paul G. Gardephe’s analysis in Ferdman v. CBS Interactive Inc., 342 F. Supp. 3d
`
`515, 534 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) is instructive, although the facts did not mirror the facts here, making
`
`the decision distinguishable. In Ferdman, the defendant published an article that stated that
`
`“images and videos from the set [of Spider-Man: Homecoming] have steadily emerged. The
`
`newest shot comes from [the Instagram of] Spider-Man actor Tom Holland himself.” Id. at 523.
`
`The article then described that image, which had been posted to Holland’s Instagram, repeated
`
`Holland’s accompanying caption, and inserted the photograph—not the Instagram post itself—
`
`below the article. See id. Judge Gardephe observed that, as in Nunez, the photograph “was the
`
`story,” but ultimately denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment because (1) there were
`
`no visual differences between the copyrighted photograph and the photograph included in the
`
`article, and (2) the statement at the beginning of the article that “images and videos have steadily
`
`emerged” suggested that the photograph might merely have been used to “announce its
`
`existence,” which would not be transformative. Id. at 534–37. Judge Gardephe held that these
`
`issues might cause reasonable jurors to disagree about whether the use was transformative and so
`
`the issue could not be resolved as a matter of law. Id. at 537.
`
`Here, as in Ferdman, the Post “was the story.” Id. at 534. But unlike in Ferdman,
`
`Defendant embedded the entire Instagram Post, still bearing the rest of the elements of the image
`
`that Cardi B had posted—the header and the photo of the Tom Ford lipstick—along with Cardi
`
`B’s caption and various Instagram standard links, making clear that the subject of the image was
`
`the Post

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket