In federal court yesterday, famous artist, photographer, and director David LaChapelle filed a multi-million dollar copyright infringement lawsuit against singer Rihanna and others involved in the production of the music video for the song “S&M” from the album “Loud.”
According to the complaint, the music video contains several scenes that are copies of original photographs conceived and created by LaChapelle, and points specifically to eight famous photographs as evidence. The music video, the artist claims, is directly derived from and substantially similar to the LaChapelle photos in the sense that, among other aspects, it contains scenes that copy the composition, concept, feel, tone, mood, theme, colors, props, wardrobe and lighting. One example of the unauthorized derivation identified in the lawsuit is illustrated by the pairing below of the original photograph (left) and a still from the video (right):
If the plaintiff can prove in court that the transformation from still photographs to the video scenes is not a substantial transformation of the original (protected) works so that they must be considered (unauthorized) derivative works, then LaChapelle is entitled (according to Title 17 USCA Sedc. 504(b)) to recover the actual damages suffered as a result of the infringement, and any profits stemming from the video that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in the determination of actual damages. The plaintiff in this case is also asking the court for a permanent injunction which would essentially mean pulling the music video from distribution.
This is a complicated case which we shall be following as it raises difficult questions of Copyright Law.
Case: David LaChapelle v. Robyn Rihanna Fenty, et al. USDC SDNY 11-CV-0945 (Filed 2/14/11).
UPDATE
LaChapelle brought copyright and trade dress infringement under federal law, and unfair competition and unjust enrichment under New York common law. In July of 2011, the Judge dismissed all but the copyright infringement claims analyzing the elements of the complaint. Soon thereafter, the parties reached a settlement and the case was closed so no substantive conclusions were reached, but there appeared to be enough evidence in the record (the explicit use of LaChapelle photographs in the storyboard for the video for one) to prompt a private conclusion to the dispute.
You must be logged in to post a comment.