Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc.
126 F.3d 70 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The unauthorized use of a copyrighted work as set decoration in a commercial television production is not a fair use if the use is not transformative and serves the same decorative purpose as the original work, thereby harming the potential market for licensing the work.
Facts:
- Faith Ringgold, an artist, created and owns the copyright to a work of art titled 'Church Picnic Story Quilt.'
- The High Museum of Art, which owns the physical artwork, held a license to reproduce and sell posters of the piece.
- Producers of the television sitcom 'ROC', a show by HBO and aired by BET, used a framed poster of 'Church Picnic Story Quilt' as a wall-hanging on the set of an episode.
- The poster was framed in such a way that the identifying text and artist's name were cropped out.
- The poster was visible in the background of a scene in nine separate instances, for an aggregate duration of 26.75 seconds.
- In the longest single instance, lasting between four and five seconds, approximately 80% of the poster was visible and recognizable, though not in perfect focus.
- Faith Ringgold discovered the use of her artwork after watching a broadcast of the episode.
Procedural Posture:
- Faith Ringgold sued Black Entertainment Television, Inc. (BET) and Home Box Office, Inc. (HBO) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for copyright infringement.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing their use was either de minimis or a fair use.
- The District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, ruling that their use of the poster was a fair use, and dismissed Ringgold's complaint.
- Ringgold, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 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 the unauthorized use of a copyrighted poster as set decoration in a television show, where it is visible for brief, intermittent periods totaling less than 30 seconds, constitute a fair use under the Copyright Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Newman, J.
No. The unauthorized use of a copyrighted poster as set decoration in a television sitcom does not constitute a fair use where the use is not transformative and usurps a traditional licensing market for the artist. The court first rejected the defendants' argument that their use was de minimis, finding that the repeated and recognizable display of the poster, totaling 26.75 seconds, crossed the quantitative threshold for actionable copying. In its fair use analysis, the court weighed the four statutory factors. The first factor, the purpose and character of the use, weighed heavily against fair use because the defendants' use was commercial and not transformative; they used the poster for its original decorative purpose, which supplanted one of the 'objects' of the original work. The second factor, the nature of the copyrighted work, weighed in Ringgold's favor as the work was highly creative. The third factor, the amount used, might favor the defendants due to the brevity and partial obscurity of the display, but the court cautioned against giving this factor dispositive weight. Crucially, the fourth factor, the effect on the potential market, also weighed heavily against fair use. The court found that Ringgold presented a triable issue of fact regarding a 'traditional, reasonable, or likely to be developed' market for licensing her artwork for set decoration. Allowing widespread, uncompensated use of this nature would destroy this potential licensing market.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of fair use to the incidental inclusion of copyrighted visual art in film and television. It establishes that using a work for its original decorative purpose, even in the background, is not transformative and weighs against a finding of fair use. The ruling emphasizes the importance of the market for licensing fees (the fourth factor), protecting an artist's ability to be compensated when their work is used commercially. The case serves as a strong precedent requiring producers to secure licenses for copyrighted art used as set dressing, rather than assuming such use is de minimis or fair.
Unlock the full brief for Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc.