Foresight Valuation Group

Intellectual asset management, intellectual property valuation, strategy and litigation support

Tag: Damages

Impact of Warhol v. Goldsmith: Kat Von D and the Miles Davis Portrait

Posted on Modified on by Lynn Dudinsky

Following the Supreme Court decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith in 2023, we published a blog titled “The Supreme Court’s Decision in Warhol v. Goldsmith: Interpreting Copyright Fair Use.” In that blog, we discussed the concept of Fair Use in the copyright context while also highlighting the key facts of the Warhol decision which we recommend reviewing prior to continuing to read this blog, if you need a refresher. We are revisiting this topic as a new case has been revived due to the precedent set by the Supreme Court, a case that involves a portrait of the acclaimed jazz musician, Miles Davis, which was taken by a Los Angeles-based photographer and used by a celebrity tattoo artist as the reference photo for a tattoo.

As a quick refresher, the term Fair Use is often mentioned in relation to the use of portion of a copyrighted material for purposes such as criticism, comment, news report, teaching, scholarship or research. When used for such purposes, the court has generally held that unauthorized use of the copyrighted material is not considered infringement as long as the use does not fail the four-factor test described in more detail in our previous post. The most scrutinized factor of the four-factor test is commonly referred to as the transformative use test which seeks to determine whether the use of the copyrighted work in question transformed the purpose and character of the work into something else, such as parody or commentary. In the Warhol case, Andy Warhol was commissioned by Vanity Fair to create a cover for the magazine’s story on the artist Prince. Andy Warhol was given a portrait of Prince taken by a rock-and-roll photographer, Lynn Goldsmith, for use as a reference photo under a license between Lynn Goldsmith and Vanity Fair. The license stipulated that Andy Warhol could use the photo for one time only and Lynn Goldsmith was paid $400. Andy Warhol, without executing additional license agreements, created 15 additional works using the reference photo. Importantly, one of these works by Andy Warhol was later licensed to Conde Nast for the specific purpose of using the work in a magazine article about the artist Prince. This use of Andy Warhol’s Prince artistic work, was ultimately the basis for the Supreme Court’s determination that Fair Use was not applicable due to the lack of transformative use. The fact that Andy Warhol used his artistic abilities to alter the reference photo was not transformative because the purpose and character of the unauthorized use was identical to the original – authorized – use of the reference photo: depicting Prince in a magazine story about Prince.

The above summary was intended to refresh the Fair Use discussion in the context of a well-known artist as this fact pattern as once again emerged in the case of Jeffrey Sedlik v. Katherine Von Drachenberg (aka Kat Von D). The facts of this case are pretty straightforward: Sedlik is a professional photographer and a professor who created and owns the copyright to a photographic portrait of the famous jazz musician, Miles Davis, that was created in 1989 and first published in JAZZIZ magazine in that same year (copied below and used under the Fair Use exclusion of commentary). This photo has been featured in magazines around the world and was featured in Life magazine’s annual “Picture of the Year” issue. Sedlik has sold licenses to the portrait which authorized reproduction, distribution, and display of the portrait for commercial and non-commercial purposes since it was created.

The other party to this case, Kat Von D, is well known in certain circles as a world-renowned tattoo artist who has appeared in various reality TV shows and magazines which can be found on her personal website. According to the complaint, Kat Von D is also a recording artist, TV and film producer and owns and operates a tattoo parlor, an art gallery, a cosmetic company, a clothing company, and a shoe company, all of which have earned her 7.4 million followers on Instagram and 12 million followers on Facebook. In 2017, Kat Von D used the Miles Davis portrait, without Sedlik’s authorization, to create a reproduction of the image in the form of a tattoo on the arm of friend whom she did not charge for the service. She featured the portrait and her work tattooing the portrait on her social media channels which Sedlik claims was done to promote and solicit the sale of goods and services of Kat Von D and her various commercial brands, as seen in the image below which was taken from the complaint.

When the case was initially brough before the court, the Andy Warhol case was not yet decided and the judge initially ruled for Kat Von D in a summary judgement decision but paused the proceeding until the Supreme Court rendered its opinion on the Warhol matter. Following the Supreme Court holding, the stay was lifted and the lawsuit was set for trial based on the Supreme Court’s opinion on the transformative use, or lack thereof, in the Warhol case. The trial for this case is set to begin in early 2024 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and poses a number of interesting questions about the reach of Fair Use under the new precedent established in the Warhol decision. While we will have to wait and see the final outcome of this case, there would be material impacts on various industries such as the tattoo industry, and perhaps even on generative AI. In the tattoo industry, use of copyrighted reference photos is common and has largely continued without disruption due to the costs of litigation compared to the typical damages for copyright infringement and the difficultly is placing a value on the personal display of an infringing work on the body of the person displaying said work. More broadly, when viewing this issue through the lens of visual works created through generative AI based on training models using copyrighted works without license, the growing body of legal decisions following the Warhol decision by the Supreme Court may pose a barrier to the field as these AI tools generate countless derivative works that may be violating the Fair Use conditions. We will keep a close eye on the trial in this case and provide an update to the blog series as the trial progresses.

Masimo vs. Apple: The Role of the ITC in Patent Disputes

Posted on Modified on by Lynn Dudinsky

As referenced in our previous blog, Demystifying the International Trade Commission (ITC), Apple made headlines in December 2023 for halting the sale of its latest Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 models in the US on December 21st. The reason behind this was a patent dispute between Apple and Masimo Corp. related to a blood oxygen sensor in which the ITC ruled Apple violated Masimo’s patents. While this came to media attention in late 2023, this case had been working its way through the court system for years, starting when Masimo won a patent infringement case against True Wearable in 2022. True Wearables’ founder and CEO Marcelo Lamego worked at both Masimo and Apple where he developed similar technologies before founding True Wearables. True Wearables’ founder first worked at Masimo and then contacted Apple CEO Tim Cook in 2013, offering to help with the Apple Watch. He subsequently joined Apple in 2014. At Apple Mr. Lamego was a named inventor on several health-related Apple patents before leaving to start True Wearables in 2014, after only a few months at Apple.  So Masimo found itself in a situation where both companies, True Wearables and Apple, were allegedly infringing its patents, which led to it taking legal action against both companies

In conjunction with the patent dispute against True Wearables which resulted in a permanent injunction against the sale of True Wearables infringing devices, Masimo also filed a Section 337 action at the ITC against Apple alleging that the company was importing into the US devices that infringed multiple patents held by Masimo. In Section 337 actions, the complainant must establish that a domestic industry for articles protected by the asserted patent(s) exists or is in the process of being established.  There are two requirements that must be met in regards to the ITC domestic industry analysis: an economic element and a technical element. The complainant  (Masimo) must show that one of the economic activities identified in 19 U.S.C § 1337(a)(3) has occurred to fulfill the economic requirement. These activities include: significant investment in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor or capital, or substantial investment in exploitation, including engineering, R&D or licensing. In regards to the technical element, the complainant must establish that it practices at least one claim in each asserted patent. One of the main arguments made by Apple was whether Masimo’s W1 smartwatch, or any product by Masimo, was actually released prior to the complaint being filed by Masimo. This is an area of active development and will likely feature prominently in the appeal by Apple which was filed on December 23, 2023.

In January of 2023, the ITC issued their Final Initial Determination that Apple was infringing on Masimo’s patents. The ITC then issued a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order against Apple in late October of 2023. Once this decision was made, the next step was a 60-day presidential review period where Apple hoped that President Biden would veto the ban as President Obama had done for Apple in 2013 in regards to the iPhone and iPad. However, as the 60-day review period approached its conclusion and there was no indication that President Biden would issue such a veto, Apple pulled the Watch Series 9 and Watch Ultra 2 from its stores and President Biden eventually declined to veto the ruling of the FTC. As a last resort, Apple filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and secured a temporary stay of the ITC’s importation and sales ban. On December 27, the Federal Circuit granted Apple’s request for an emergency stay.  This temporary could be extended through the conclusion of the ITC appeal which could take about 18 months.

The outcome of this appeal and any further actions are important to Apple as affected watch models have been some of its best sellers, accounting for a substantial portion of the company’s overall watch sales. Although Apple hasn’t publicly disclosed revenue figures, analysts estimate that the Apple Watch alone generated approximately $17 billion in sales in fiscal 2023. Moreover, the removal of the affected watches from Apple’s online store and physical retail locations only adds another layer of complexity to the situation, as the watches will still be available through third-party retailers. Apple is working across multiple venues to overcome the decision by the ITC. As referenced above, Apple filed the appeal and won a temporary stay and will push the CAFC to find in its favor and reverse the decision of the ITC. At the same time, Apple has submitted plans to the US Customs and Border Protection for a software solution. One other possibility in this complex dispute is for Apple to pay Masimo to end the dispute and put an end to the business disruption caused by this ongoing patent dispute.

The key takeaway from the events surrounding the Masimo patents is that the ITC is an important venue for patent enforcement in the U.S., where the range of remedies may actually include a physical importation and sales ban, particularly when it comes to products where the supply chain dictates importation of products manufactured overseas.  Stay tuned for more updates on this blog as the CAFC and ITC appeal proceedings continue in 2024.

The Supreme Court’s Decision in Warhol v. Goldsmith: Interpreting Copyright Fair Use

Posted on Modified on by Lynn Dudinsky

There have been many conflicting opinions regarding the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith, with some circles claiming that the decision “Changed the Future of Art” and others applauding the Court for providing clarity on fair use in copyright. Given the varied opinions on the outcome, the purpose of this article is to highlight the changes and the potential impact of the decision. In order to do that, it is important to first explain the fair use framework before diving into the details of the Court’s decision.

Fair use in copyrights enables someone other than the copyright owner to copy, perform, transmit, distribute copies, or display a copyrighted work under certain circumstances without it being considered infringement. The concept of fair use as a limitation on the exclusive rights of a copyright holders is codified in the Copyright Act, 17 U.S. Code Section 107, which describes fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research is not infringement and lays out a four factor test to assist in the determination of whether a use is protected as fair use. That four factor test includes the following factors to be considered:

  1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educations purposes;
  2. The nature of the copyright work,
  3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The first factor has traditionally been the primary focus of the fair use analysis and is commonly referred to as the transformative use test. This test was first established in a case between the rap group, 2 Live Crew, which used portions of the song “Oh, Pretty Woman” in the opening of one of their songs. The Court in that decision ruled that 2 Live Crew’s use of the portion of “Oh, Pretty Woman” was transformative because it was a parody of the original. Similar examples of transformative use of copyrighted materials typically involve use of copyrighted material for educational or commentary purposes but also extends to libraries making digital copies of books for the purpose of 1) preservation, 2) full-text search and 3) electronic access for disabled patrons who cannot read print versions which the court determined was transformative use.

Stepping back to the Supreme Court’s Warhol decision while keeping the transformative use in mind, we can go into the relevant details of the Warhol case. The case involved two artists, Andy Warhol and Lynn Goldsmith. Lynn Goldsmith specialized in rock-and-roll photography and had her work published in magazines including Life, Time, Rolling Stone and People. Andy Warhol was a visual/pop artist with works appearing in museums around the world. In 1984, Lynn Goldsmith licensed one of her photographs of the artist Prince to Vanity Fair for use as an artist’s reference. This reference photograph was then used by Andy Warhol to make a silkscreen which was featured in Vanity Fair. Lynn Goldsmith was credited as the owner of the source photograph and was paid $400. The license between Lynn Goldsmith and Vanity Fair in 1984 under the condition that the photo be used for one time only.

Unbeknownst to Lynn Goldsmith, Andy Warhol not only created the one silkscreen for Vanity Fair, he also derived 15 additional works of Prince using the reference photo. One of those additional works was later licensed by the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts to Conde Nast for $10,000. Importantly, the purpose of this license to Conde Nast was to publish an article on the artist Prince, the same purpose as the original license with Vanity Fair. When Lynn Goldsmith approached the Andy Warhol Foundation expressing her belief that their use of her photograph and the resulting work that was licensed to Conde Nast infringed her copyright, the Andy Warhol Foundation sued Lynn Goldsmith for declaratory judgement that the works were non-infringing or, in the alternative, that they made fair use of Lynn Goldsmith’s photograph.

The District Court granted summary judgement for the Andy Warhol Foundation, focusing on the first factor and determining that the use was transformative because looking at the works of Andy Warhol and the reference photograph side-by-side, the court opined that they have difference character and give a new expression to Lynn Goldsmith’s photograph. It is important to see the side-by-side, which is copied below, because speaking as someone who is not artistic it is easy to argue that adding what appears to mostly be an orange background does not transform the photo from a picture of Prince to something more, but that is the difficulty with a test that can oftentimes hinge on subjective interpretation of artistic expression that is not typically in the wheelhouse of the average attorney or judge. The District Court believed the Warhol silkscreen on the right transformed the Prince depicted on the left from a vulnerable, uncomfortable person to an iconic, larger-than-life figure and that the picture on the right is immediately recognizable as a Warhol rather than a photograph of Prince.

The Court of Appeals, perhaps being less knowledgeable about artist expression or perhaps viewing the works from a more objective perspective that both images are clearly Prince, reversed and remanded after holding that all four fair use factors favored Lynn Goldsmith. Focusing on the first factor, the Court of Appeals rejected the lower court’s argument that transformative is met when any new aesthetic or new expression is added to source material. The Court of Appeals focused on whether the work’s (orange Warhol on the right above) use of its source material (Lynn Goldsmith photo on left) is in service of a fundamentally different and new artistic purpose and character, adding that the transformative purpose must be something more than the imposition of another artist’s style on the primary work. The opinion also made clear that the lower court’s belief that the work was transformative because it is immediately recognizable as a Warhol was wrong and would only create a celebrity-plagiarist privilege.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari and summarized the issue fairly succinctly by describing the first factor purpose test for fair use in this case as portraits of Prince used to depict Prince in magazine stories about Prince, the original photograph and the Andy Warhol Foundation’s copying use of it share substantially the same purpose and that purpose was commercial in nature. The last part of that summary by the Court is important because the preamble to the fair use defense to copyright infringement lays out a number of examples that reflect the sorts of copying that courts and Congress have found to be fair use such as criticism, comment, news report, teaching, scholarship or research. Each of these uses serve “a manifestly different purpose from the work itself.” When viewed together, the commercial use of a portrait of Prince to depict Prince in articles about Prince, based off of a reference photo that has been licensed for commercial use on its own to depict Prince in magazine stories about Prince, is not transformative use simply because it was created by Andy Warhol.

The Court rightly refocused the test, in this specific instance, away from the subjective review of the level of transformation by one artist of another artist’s work and directly to the purpose of the use in determining whether fair use is a viable defense to copyright infringement. The 2 Live Crew example described above was not a case where 2 Live Crew used the full lyrics and simply sang it differently to make it recognizable as 2 Live Crew, instead, it was a parody that used an immaterial amount of the source material to mimic the original. The Court provides an additional and pointed example referencing Andy Warhol’s use of the Campbell’s Soup can and logo to create his Soup Can series. Andy Warhol’s Soup Can series depicts Campbell’s copyrighted logo that it uses for advertising purposes; however, Andy Warhol’s purpose in creating the Soup Can series was not to advertise and increase sales on behalf of Campbell’s but was for the purpose of artistic commentary on consumerism. The fact that Campbell’s benefitted from the purpose behind Andy Warhol’s series and sold more soup cans had no bearing on the purpose being commentary which is directly implicated in the preamble to the fair use exemption.

Dissenting opinions by the Court and substantial commentary by artists and others who have relied on fair use paint a picture that would have one believe that the fair use exemption has been forever changed and that under this new approach, no amount of artistic creativity will provide a fair use defense for commercial works. In my opinion, those concerns are overblown due to Supreme Court’s narrow ruling in this cases that benefited from a very specific set of facts which the Court highlighted when describing the purpose of the allegedly infringing use of portraits of Prince used to depict Prince in magazine stories about Prince. This is further narrowed by the original license that restricted the use of the source photograph to one time use by Vanity Fair. With those limitations in mind, the narrow ruling by the Supreme Court aligns with the purpose of the original copyright act and the balance that must be met between creative freedom and protecting original works of authorship.

 

 

 

The MetaBirkin NFT Project: When the First Amendment Meets Trademark Law

Posted on Modified on by Lynn Dudinsky

Major brands such as Nike, Tiffany, Gucci and Lacoste have embraced the emerging market provided by blockchain based technologies such as NFTs and the metaverse. As these markets grow, so do instances of potential trademark infringement by entities and creators looking to carve out their niche in this new market and profit from their early adoption. This dynamic led to the case of Hermes International v. Rothschild (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:22-cv-00384), where Hermes accused Mason Rothschild, whose legal name is Sonny Estival, of trademark infringement, dilution and cybersquatting with the launch of Rothschild’s MetaBirkin NFT project. The MetaBirkin project featured the release of 100 NFTS depicting fur-covered Birkin handbags which were sold for over $1.1 million ($45,000 from the initial sale and approximately $1 million in secondary sales) with Rothschild receiving a portion of initial sales as well as 7.5% of every re-sale of a MetaBirkin NFT.

As a bit of a primer for those who are not aware of the Hermes Birkin line of handbags, these handbags are prices from $9,000 to $50,000 and have received much higher prices at auctions while also generating over $1 billion in sales for Hermes. Hermes owns the trademark rights in the “Birkin” mark related to the name of the handbag as well as trade dress rights in the design of the Birkin handbag. Hermes is not one of the brands mentioned above that have entered into the NFT/blockchain market but there have been reports that Hermes has intentions of entering this space either in the form of NFTs or, more likely, embracing blockchain technology to verify authenticity and ownership via proof of ownership NFTs.

With that out of the way, we return to the case where the MetaBirkin NFT project produced 100 NFTs, each featuring a fur-covered Birkin bag. Mr. Rothschild claimed that this project was an artistic expression and commentary on the use of fur and other animal based materials by luxury brands such as Hermes. Hermes claimed that the use of the Birkin mark and the look of the MegaBirkin handbag infringed upon Hermes’ trademarks. This dispute pins First Amendment artistic expression against Federal Trademark law with the evaluation of which public policy wins to be determined under the speech-protective test set forth in Rogers v. Grimaldi. This test effectively states that an artistic work is not entitled to First Amendment protection if the plaintiff can show that either (1) the use of its trademark in the expressive work was not artistically relevant to the underlying work or (2) the trademark is used to explicitly mislead the public as to the source or content of the underlying work.

Evidence in this case suggested that the purpose behind the use of the Birkin mark was to make a connection to and leverage the Birkin brand to drive sales of the MetaBirkin NFTs.  Mr. Rothschild’s use of the Birkin mark in the project name, on the project website and the handbag bearing a close resemblance to a Birkin bag, albeit covered in fur, illustrates the desired connection to the Hermes mark. Moreover, studies showed close to 20% of people surveyed believed there to be a connection and multiple publications stated there was a connection. While Mr. Rothschild sought corrections in those publications through his publicists, those requests for corrections occurred after receipt of a cease and desist letter from Hermes.

It is important to take a step back at this point and remember the purpose of trademarks. As explained by the court in this case, Trademark law is concerned with preventing consumer confusion and making it easier for consumers to make informed decisions about products on the market. More specifically, the reason that trademark law protects a mark holder’s rights in certain symbols, elements, or devices used to identify a product in the marketplace is so that consumers can reliably determine the producer or origin of a particular good. It is this concept that makes the second factor of the Rogers test the important test in this case because even if there is a finding that the use of the trademark bears some artistic relevance to the underlying work, the First Amendment does not protect such use if it explicitly misleads as to the source or content of the work.

The instructions to the jury further explained the policy weighting between First Amendment protection and Trademark law in saying that Mr. Rothschild is protected from liability on any of Hermes’ claims unless Hermes proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the use of Birkin mark was not just likely to confuse potential consumers but was intentionally designed to mislead potential customers into believing that Hermes was associated with the MetaBirkin project, thereby waiving any First Amendment protection. With this instruction in mind, the jury found in favor of Hermes on Trademark Infringement, Trademark Dilution and cybersquatting. The damages for Trademark Infringement/Dilution are based on the profits earned from the infringement and/or dilution and awarded net profit damages of $110,000. Cybersquatting damages are based on statutory damages where the jury may award damages not less than $1,000 and not more than $100,000 with the jury setting the statutory damages at $23,000.

Hermes v. Rothschild presents an early example of what we can expect will be a growing area of trademark litigation as the market for NFTs and other blockchain innovations lowers the barrier of entry for content creators to monetize their creations. Given the abundance and ease of creating NFTs, leveraging established brands to stand out and increase profits is one strategy that must be done with extreme caution and with a full understanding of the limitations of First Amendment protections. Moreover, the anonymity that is oftentimes enabled by blockchain technologies creates an additional hurdle for brands seeking to police their marks in an space where the identify of the alleged infringer is unknown.

Proudly powered by WordPress | Foresight theme designed by thingsym