Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fitzgerald v. CBS Summary Judgment Order
Fitzgerald v. CBS Summary Judgment Order
Fitzgerald v. CBS Summary Judgment Order
CHRISTOPHER FITZGERALD, )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 06cv11302-NG
)
CBS BROADCASTING, INC., )
Defendant. )
GERTNER, D.J.:
I. INTRODUCTION
CBS has moved to dismiss the second lawsuit and has moved
lawsuit are DISMISSED, and the remaining claim for actual damages
II. BACKGROUND
A. Facts
1. The Photographs
-2-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 3 of 32
towards the left of the frame, and one showing him facing towards
The Boston Globe, twice by The New York Times, twice by the
-3-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 4 of 32
The two stations share many resources: They have the same
studio space, operate out of the same building, use the same
newscast and then re-used an hour later on UPN-38. For live news
backdrop.
different.
-4-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 5 of 32
In 1998, CBS-4 (at that time called WBZ-TV) used the left-
facing photo (taken from the front page of the January 7, 1995,
to the uses alleged by Fitzgerald, but did not concede that these
-5-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 6 of 32
photographs.
of Flemmi on the pitch reel, cropped out the part of the photo
the cropped image on the 11:00 news that evening on CBS-4. The
-6-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 7 of 32
on UPN-38 that same day. The photograph was also posted on the
B. Procedural History
(“‘04 action”), on October 12, 2004 (document #1) against CBS for
11302 (“‘06 action”), against CBS on July 28, 2006 (document #1).
C. Claims
-7-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 8 of 32
each. Defendant argues that the two stations are in fact only
1
[T]he copyright owner may elect, at any
time before final judgment is rendered, to
recover, instead of actual damages and
profits, an award of statutory damages for
-8-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 9 of 32
Inc. v. Gillman Knitwear Co., Inc., 207 F.3d 56, 63-4 (1st Cir.
2000) (citing Feltner v. Columbia Pictures TV, 523 U.S. 340, 355
17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1).
-9-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 10 of 32
statutory damages.
involves the same facts and the same parties as the claims in the
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)). The nonmovant must then
Airlines, Inc., 56 F.3d 313, 315 (1st Cir. 1995). The court
must:
law. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S.
decided by the Court. Fisher v. Dees, 794 F.2d 432, 436 (9th Cir.
-11-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 12 of 32
Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 577 (1994) (quoting Stewart
v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 236 (1990)). Fair use is not defined by
“(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such
purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount
copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon
-12-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 13 of 32
the progress of science and the useful arts.” U.S. Const., art.
Third, courts ask whether the use was commercial - i.e. whether
909, 917 (D. Mass. 1993); Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579; Triangle
1171, 1175 (5th Cir. 1980). These three questions are cumulative
-13-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 14 of 32
mere fact that a use falls into one of those categories does not
first factor.
Plaintiff argues that the 2004 use of the Flemmi photo was
other grounds, 471 U.S. 539 (1985); accord Gertz v. Robert Welch,
Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 346 (1974). The Martorano sentencing itself
-14-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 15 of 32
to the copyrighted work (in the sense that nails are complements
copyrighted work (in the sense that nails are substitutes for
Int'l, 292 F.3d 512, 517 (7th Cir. 2002). Of course all reuse of
-15-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 16 of 32
Cir. 2000). On the other hand, reuse of news videos of the 1992
Los Angeles riots was not “transformative” where the videos were
Supp. 1265 (C.D. Cal. 1996) aff’d in part, rev’d on other grounds
the photograph and its ultimate meaning and use on June 24-25,
2004.
-16-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 17 of 32
the arrest - the state troopers - and embedding the cropped photo
-17-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 18 of 32
2
have meaning in the context of ordinary news practice.
2
If such a minor adjustment was transformative in the fair use sense,
then it is hard to imagine any use of archived imagery in news reporting that
would not be fair use. For perspective, below is an example of a typical
freelance photojournalism transaction involving far more recontextualization
than exists in the facts of the instant case. The use in this example was
never litigated, and so there was no finding as to whether it was or was not
fair use. It is cited here not as precedent, but to give some context as to
the ordinary processes of the industry in which this case arose:
-18-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 19 of 32
fair use can exist side by side, the court may consider whether
for private commercial gain.” MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, 677 F.2d 180,
entities. CBS operates the stations for profit, and the stations
CBS does not argue that its newscasts are non-commercial, but
instead argues that the use of the Flemmi photo had no commercial
The decision to use the photo - and all the other decisions
-19-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 20 of 32
the use is monetary gain but whether the user stands to profit
customary price.'” Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 562. CBS certainly
commercial.
Therefore, I find that the nature and character of the use weigh
-20-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 21 of 32
factual or creative.
private material. See Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 564. Where a
does not mean that this inquiry weighs in favor of fair use, only
other hand, does not “promote the progress of the useful arts,”
-21-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 22 of 32
light during the brief moment when Flemmi was visible, so that
for the purposes of fair use; those videos involved all of the
did not make here - the court still found that the “pictures
626 F. Supp. 201, 204, 211 (D. Mass. 1986) (Wolf, J.) (staged
Fitzgerald’s getting the scoop was not a creative process for the
and therefore this factor weighs against him and in favor of fair
use.
cropping does not impact the Court’s consideration. Harper & Row,
-23-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 24 of 32
Here, CBS did edit the photo in a way that was arguably more
the major visual cue that Flemmi was being arrested. But it did
use most of the “heart” of the photo - the rare image of Flemmi.
What is more, CBS did not use the cropping to change the
minor.
important element of fair use.” Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 566;
Robinson v. Random House, Inc., 877 F. Supp. 830, 842 & n.4, 843
it did, circular reasoning would resolve all fair use cases for
-25-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 26 of 32
finds that CBS’s use was fair use, then all of these media uses -
and uses like them in the future - would also be fair use,
3
That most of this revenue has come from legal damages and settlements
rather than from fees paid up front does not detract from the evidence that a
market for the photographs exist. What is relevant is that media outlets have
demonstrated demand by repeatedly using the photographs in the same way that
CBS used them.
-26-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 27 of 32
V. WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
willful when the infringer knew or should have known that her
maximum, all the way down to the statutory minimum of $750. Id.
Inc. v. Gillman Knitwear Co., Inc., 207 F.3d 56, 62-3, 66 (1st
4
Willfulness is not an issue in determining actual damages. However,
plaintiff has said that he is likely to elect statutory damages. Pl.’s Memo
in Supp’t of S.J. at 17-18 (document # 25-1).
-27-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 28 of 32
Cir. 2000) (citing Feltner v. Columbia Pictures TV, 523 U.S. 340,
or not (and thus the setting of the range in which the fact-
summary judgment.
Plaintiff argues that CBS was on notice that it did not have
it was fair use. A defendant’s good faith belief that its use of
in fair use must have existed at the time of the use, not merely
-28-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 29 of 32
Christina Hager).
5
District courts in similar cases have glossed over the difference
between supervisors and the employees who actually carried out the
infringement, and so it is difficult to determine exactly on whose state of
mind they based their findings. For example, in Jobete Music Co. v. Johnson
Communs., Inc., 285 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1090 (S.D. Ohio 2003), the court held
simply that where the supervisor of a radio station knew that the station was
not licensed to play a particular song, and where the supervisor posted a
notice in the DJ booth instructing DJs not to play the song, and where a DJ
played the song anyway, the station was liable for willful infringement. The
court in Jobete did not elaborate on exactly whose state of mind fulfilled the
willfulness requirement; most likely it was the DJ whose infringement was
willful, with the station being liable by respondeat superior.
In another radio station case with nearly identical facts, the station
manager’s “claims that he instructed the station's personnel not to play
[copyrighted] material, and that he took other attempts to keep such material
from being broadcast, do not raise a question of fact whether the infringement
was willful.” Barnaby Music Corp. v. Catoctin Broadcasting Corp., 1988 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 15394 *11 (W.D.N.Y. 1988). Again, the court glossed over the
question of exactly whose state of mind created the willfulness, but the most
likely explanation is the same as in Jobete. See also Broadcast Music, Inc.
v. Hobi, Inc., 1993 WL 404152 (E.D. La. June 24, 1993).
Note that fair use was not an issue in any of these radio station cases,
and so they do not resolve the question presented in this case, where
defendants challenge willfulness by claiming that they believed their
broadcast was fair use. They are presented here only to illustrate how
willfulness is located in corporate defendants.
-29-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 30 of 32
finding of willfulness.
Baylor Pub. Co., 807 F.2d 1110, 1115 (2d Cir 1986) (“a
-30-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 31 of 32
Flemmi photographs and that they must destroy any copies they
VI. CONCLUSION
-31-
Case 1:06-cv-11302-NG Document 12 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 32 of 32
the jury.
SO ORDERED.
-32-