Laney Griner v. King for Congress
Not available in provided text (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The commercial use of a copyrighted image as an internet meme for fundraising purposes does not constitute fair use under the Copyright Act when the use is not sufficiently transformative and lacks a compelling justification beyond conveying a new message.
Facts:
- In 2007, Laney Griner took a photograph of her 11-month-old son, Sam.
- The photograph became a widely recognized internet meme known as 'Success Kid.'
- In 2012, Griner registered the copyright for the 'Success Kid' photograph with the U.S. Copyright Office.
- Griner commercially licensed the copyrighted photograph to numerous major companies, including Microsoft and Coca-Cola, for use in advertisements.
- In 2020, the King for Congress Committee posted a meme featuring the 'Success Kid' photograph on its website and social media accounts.
- The Committee's meme included the text 'FUND OUR MEMES!!!' and a link directing users to a campaign donation page.
- The Committee did not seek or obtain permission from Griner to use the copyrighted photograph.
- After being notified of the infringement by Griner's attorney, the parties failed to reach a settlement.
Procedural Posture:
- Laney Marie Griner and Sam Griner sued Congressman Steven Arnold King and the King for Congress Committee in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa for copyright infringement and invasion of privacy.
- At trial, a jury found that the King for Congress Committee had committed innocent copyright infringement, but that Congressman King had not.
- The jury awarded Griner $750 in statutory damages, the minimum amount.
- The jury found that neither the Congressman nor the Committee was liable for invasion of privacy.
- Both parties moved the district court for costs and attorney's fees.
- The district court denied all motions for attorney's fees but made partial awards of costs.
- The King for Congress Committee and Congressman King, as defendants-appellants, appealed the judgment and the denial of fees and costs to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a political campaign's use of a copyrighted photograph as an internet meme to solicit donations constitute 'fair use' under the Copyright Act, thereby shielding it from a copyright infringement claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Benton, J.
No, a political campaign's use of a copyrighted photograph as an internet meme to solicit donations does not constitute 'fair use' under the Copyright Act. The court conducted a de novo review of the fair use defense and analyzed the four statutory factors. The first factor, 'the purpose and character of the use,' weighed heavily against fair use because the Committee's use was 'purely commercial'—soliciting campaign donations. Citing 'Andy Warhol Found. v. Goldsmith', the court noted that such commercial use requires a 'particularly compelling justification,' which the Committee failed to provide. The court found the use was not transformative, as its purpose was commercial, similar to Griner's own licensing of the meme template for commercial purposes. The argument that 'everyone else is doing it' was dismissed as not compelling. The third factor, 'amount and substantiality,' also weighed against fair use because the meme used the 'heart' of the copyrighted work. The fourth factor, 'effect on the potential market,' was neutral. Because the analysis weighed heavily in favor of Griner, the jury's finding of infringement was upheld. The court also affirmed the district court's other rulings, including the denial of attorney's fees to the Committee because it was not a prevailing party.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the fair use doctrine to internet memes, particularly in a commercial context. It reinforces the Supreme Court's precedent in 'Andy Warhol Found. v. Goldsmith', establishing that a commercial use of a copyrighted work requires a strong, transformative justification to be considered fair. The ruling serves as a significant warning to political campaigns, advertisers, and other commercial entities that the widespread, casual use of memes in non-commercial contexts does not create an implied license or automatic fair use defense for for-profit activities. This case solidifies the distinction between permissible non-commercial meme creation and the stricter standards applied to commercial exploitation of copyrighted content.
