Sandoval v. New Line Cinema
147 F.3d 215 (1998)
Rule of Law:
The use of a copyrighted work is not an actionable infringement if the use is de minimis, meaning the copying is so trivial and insubstantial that it falls below the quantitative threshold of substantial similarity.
Facts:
- Between 1991 and 1994, artist Jorge Antonio Sandoval created a series of 52 unique black and white self-portrait photographs.
- Sandoval holds the valid copyrights for these photographs, which were never published or publicly exhibited.
- In 1995, New Line Cinema Corp. produced and released the motion picture “Seven,” which features a story about a depraved photographer.
- In one scene set in the killer's apartment, ten of Sandoval's copyrighted photographs were reproduced as transparencies and placed on a large light-box used as a set dressing.
- The light-box with the photographs is visible in eleven different camera shots over a period of approximately ninety seconds.
- The total screen time for the photographs is approximately 35.6 seconds, with the longest single, uninterrupted view lasting six seconds.
- Throughout their appearance, the photographs are in the distant background, poorly lit, out of focus, and frequently obstructed by actors and other props, rendering them barely discernible.
Procedural Posture:
- Jorge Antonio Sandoval filed a copyright infringement action against New Line Cinema Corp. and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing their use of the photographs was a fair use.
- The District Court (trial court) granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, holding that the use of the photographs was a fair use under § 107 of the Copyright Act.
- Sandoval (appellant) appealed the District Court's judgment to the United States 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 use of copyrighted photographs as briefly visible, out-of-focus, and obstructed background props in a motion picture constitute an actionable copyright infringement?
Opinions:
Majority - Telesca, District Judge
No. The use of copyrighted photographs as briefly visible, out-of-focus background props does not constitute actionable copyright infringement because the use is de minimis. Before undertaking a fair use analysis, a court must first determine if the alleged infringement is so trivial as to fall below the threshold for an actionable claim. A use is de minimis if it is not substantially similar to the copyrighted work. For visual works, this inquiry focuses on the work's 'observability,' which is determined by the length of time the work appears and its prominence, including factors like lighting, focus, and positioning. In this case, Sandoval's photographs were displayed briefly, at a distance, out of focus, and in poor lighting, making them virtually unidentifiable to the average lay observer. Unlike the work in 'Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television,' where the artwork was clearly visible, here the repeated but obscured shots had no cumulative effect because the images were not distinguishable. Therefore, the use was de minimis as a matter of law and does not constitute copyright infringement.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the 'de minimis' use doctrine as a critical threshold inquiry that must be conducted before a fair use analysis in copyright infringement cases. It establishes that not every unauthorized use of a copyrighted work is legally actionable; if the use is trivial enough, the claim can be dismissed without reaching the more complex, multi-factor fair use defense. The court's focus on 'observability' provides a practical framework for future cases involving visual works used as background elements in film and television, creating a higher bar for plaintiffs whose work appears only fleetingly or indistinctly. This precedent offers protection to filmmakers from infringement liability for incidental, non-prominent uses of copyrighted materials in set dressing.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Sandoval v. New Line Cinema (1998)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"