Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Phillip C.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that defendant's work was transformative where he “change[d] . . . [the image's] colors, the background against which it is portrayed, the medium, the size of the objects pictured, [and] the objects’ details
• explaining that court may resolve fair use question at summary judgment if there are no genuine issues of fact
• noting that the secondary work \had no deleterious effect upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work\ where the plaintiff acknowledged that she had not published or licensed her photograph
• finding that this factor “greatly favor[ed]” the alleged in-fringer where the copyright holder had “never licensed any of her photographs for use in works of graphic or other visual art”
• finding reasonable defendant’s choice to extract portions of copyrighted work with purpose of evoking “certain style of mass communication”
• concluding this factor weighed for fair use where “nothing in the record here suggests that there was a derivative market for [plaintiff] to tap into that is in any way related to [defendant’s] use of her work, even if she dearly wanted to”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).