A federal district court judge has dismissed photographer Janine Gordon’s suit against photographer Ryan McGinley, and also offered a useful refresher course on the basics of copyright law.
In June, Gordon sued McGinley and his galleries, alleging that the artist had copied both her style and her subject matter in his art shows and his advertising work for Levi’s Go Forth campaign. As evidence, she submitted 150 of her images and McGinley’s featuring the same subjects, including a man jumping with his arms outstretched, a black man and a white woman kissing, and a woman’s nude torso.
After reviewing the images, Judge Richard Sullivan for the Southern District of New York ruled in a decision released Thursday that “there is no substantial similarity between Plaintiff’s works and the allegedly infringing compositions of McGinley.” While both artists photographed similar subjects, copyright law protects only the expression of an idea – not the idea itself. Gordon’s “apparent theory of infringement would assert copyright interests in virtually any figure with outstretched arms, any interracial kiss, or any nude torso,” the judge wrote. “Such a conception of copyright law has no basis in statute, case law, or common sense.”
PDN often hears from photographers complaining that their work has been ripped off by another photographer. Judge Sullivan’s opinion in Gordon v. McGinley highlights how difficult it is for copycat claims to meet the law’s standards for infringement. Quoting an earlier ruling by the Second Circuit, he notes, “Not all copying results in copyright infringement.”
The judge added a few scathing words for Gordon and her lawyers. “One might have hoped that [plaintiff’s] attorneys, presumably familiar with the basic tenets of copyright and intellectual property law, would have recognized the futility of this action before embarking on a long, costly, and ultimately wasteful course of litigation in a court of law.”
PDFs of the full opinion are available. Tech Dirt’s article on the case has a link.
The joke is over in the monkey selfie case. Photographer David Slater, who is defending himself against PETA’s copyright infringement claim on behalf of a monkey, has told the Telegraph newspaper that the lawsuit has left him penniless. He is considering giving up his career as a wildlife photographer to become a tennis coach or... More ›
Judges fired tough questions yesterday at a PETA lawyer arguing a copyright appeal on behalf of a monkey in the case of Naruto v. David Slater. The now famous “monkey selfie” case pits an Indonesian macaque monkey named Naruto against photographer David Slater. In 2011, Naruto picked up Slater’s unattended camera and shot a selfie.... More ›
Photojournalists are now taking new measures to protect their data and their sources in the event of hacking, surveillance or seizure of their digital devices by border patrols, intelligence agencies or other, non-state actors. In PDN’s June issue we asked photojournalists how they secure their laptops, phones and cameras. The Freedom of the Press Foundation... More ›