I joined with many last week who were thrilled to hear that a
collection of iconic photos by celebrity photographer Annie
Leibovitz has landed a permanent home at the Art Gallery of Nova
Scotia. Apart from their artistic merit, one photo which we will
soon see up close has found its way into copyright casebooks.
In 1991, actress Demi Moore was photographed by Leibovitz naked
and seven months pregnant for the cover of Vanity Fair magazine. It
became one of the highest selling issues in the history of Vanity
Fair and generated significant controversy. Two years later, as
part of the Naked Gun movie series, Paramount Pictures launched a
national ad campaign for "Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final
Insult." Leslie Neilsen's smug mug was superimposed on the
body of a naked and pregnant woman (not Demi Moore's) with the
caption "Due this March". The pose, background and
lighting were set up to closely resemble the original Leibovitz
photo of Moore.
Leibovitz sued for copyright infringement.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
decision of the Southern District of New York that it was
"fair use" (
Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp). Although Paramount's
photographer drew heavily from Leibovitz' composition, the ad
was recognizable as parody. Elements of the composition led to this
conclusion - the lighting was more garish, the ring on the model
was larger and flashier and Neilson was smirking compared to the
serene and serious Moore. And the bottom line - he's a pregnant
man!! Finally, although the ad was used by Paramount for a
commercial purpose, there was admittedly, no market harm to
Leibovitz. The court was undeterred by the argument that
celebrities would be reluctant to pose if they risked being
parodied, finding this was not a recognizable harm.
Until November 2012, it would have been doubtful if a Canadian
court could (or would) have reached the same conclusion. But, as we
have written about previously, Canada has recently passed
amendments to the Copyright Act such that "fair
dealing for the purpose of research, private study, education,
parody or satire does not infringe copyright." (
Parody & Satire into Canada's Copyright Act: A Birth or
merely a Confirmation?)
Of course, recognizing a use as parody isn't enough; a court
will still asses the "fairness" of the use by assessing
six factors: the purpose, character, and amount of the dealing; the
existence of any alternatives to the dealing; the nature of the
work; and the effect of the dealing on the work.
To date, there are no reported Canadian cases adjudicating on
the new parody rights in the Copyright Act and it remains
to be seen how a court will approach these new rights. Until then,
when you're visiting the AGNS, stop and admire Ms.
Leibovitz's photos, but think twice before you parody them.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Software license agreements generally require the customer to pay fees for the software license and related services, which fees are usually based upon the duration of the license and the manner in which the customer is allowed to use the software, together with applicable taxes and withholdings.
In less than nine months, on July 1, 2017, persons affected by a contravention of Canada's anti-spam legislation will be able to invoke a private right of action to sue for compensation and potentially substantial statutory damages.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).