Leigh v. WARNER BROS., a DIV. OF TIME WARNER
48 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1172, 10 F. Supp. 2d 1371, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9755 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Copyright protection for a photograph does not extend to the subject matter of the photo or to ideas and concepts that naturally flow from that subject matter (scènes à faire). Protection is limited to the photographer's original contributions, such as the selection of lighting, shading, timing, angle, and film.
Facts:
- In 1938, Sylvia Shaw Judson sculpted a statue that came to be known as 'the Bird Girl.'
- The statue was placed in the Trosdal family's burial plot in Savannah’s Bonaventure Cemetery.
- In 1993, Random House commissioned photographer Jack Leigh to create a photograph for the cover of the book 'Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil'.
- Leigh's resulting photograph of the 'Bird Girl' statue was used on the book's cover and became widely recognized.
- After the book became a bestseller, Lucy Trosdal, a member of the family that owned the plot, removed the original statue from the cemetery to protect it and the plot's tranquility.
- In 1997, Warner Bros. began producing a film based on the book.
- Warner Bros. obtained permission from Judson's heir to create a replica of the 'Bird Girl' statue.
- Warner Bros. placed its replica on a new base in a different location within Bonaventure Cemetery and then created its own still photographs and film footage of the replica for use in the film and its promotion.
Procedural Posture:
- Jack Leigh sued Warner Bros., Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.
- Leigh's complaint alleged copyright infringement and violations of the Lanham Act.
- Defendant Warner Bros. filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the copyright infringement claim.
- Plaintiff Leigh filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the same copyright claim.
- Defendant Warner Bros. also filed a motion to dismiss the Lanham Act claims, which the court converted into a motion for summary judgment.
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 party's creation of new photographs and film footage of a public domain sculpture infringe the copyright of a prior photograph of the same sculpture when the new works only share non-copyrightable elements, such as the subject matter and a general mood?
Opinions:
Majority - Nangle, District Judge.
No. Warner Bros.' images do not infringe on Leigh's copyright because any similarities between the works relate only to non-copyrightable elements. Copyright law protects only a photographer's original expression, not the idea or subject matter of the photograph. The court reasoned that Leigh cannot claim a copyright in the Bird Girl statue itself, its location in the cemetery, its pose, or its appearance, as he did not create them. Furthermore, the 'eerie' or 'spiritual' mood of the photograph is an unprotectable 'scène à faire,' as such a mood naturally flows from the subject of a statue in a cemetery. The only copyrightable aspects of Leigh's photograph are his specific choices of lighting, shading, timing, angle, and film. Upon comparing these protected elements to Warner Bros.' images, the court found no substantial similarity, noting differences in lighting, camera angle, composition, background details (due to the different location), and color tinting. The court concluded that the only similarities stemmed from the shared, non-copyrightable subject matter, and therefore, Warner Bros. was entitled to summary judgment on the copyright claim for most of its images.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the important distinction between an idea and its expression in copyright law, particularly as applied to photography. It clarifies that the copyright for a photograph of a pre-existing object is 'thin,' protecting only the photographer's specific creative contributions and not the subject itself. The ruling prevents the first photographer of a public object or scene from monopolizing that subject, ensuring that other artists remain free to create their own original works depicting the same thing. By applying the scènes à faire doctrine to the photograph's mood, the court further narrowed the scope of protection, establishing that common themes or feelings associated with a subject are part of the unprotectable idea. This case serves as a crucial precedent for disputes involving derivative works based on the same public subject matter.
