Michael Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the use of a photograph was insubstantial when the second use lowered the resolution, removed the background, colors, and shading, and changed the medium
• “[A]sking exclusively whether something is ‘transformative’ not only replaces the list in § 107 but also could override 17 U.S.C. § 106(2), which protects derivative works.”
• “We think it best to stick with the statutory list, of which the most important usually is the fourth (market effect).”
• “To say that a new use transforms the work is precisely to say that it is derivative and thus, one might suppose, protected under [17 U.S.C.] § 106(2).”
• “Defendants removed so much of the original that, as with the Cheshire Cat, only the smile remains.”
• use of mayor’s photograph on t-shirt with political 20 message was fair use

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).