Join NCAC Now

» art» media» literature» science» internet» education» entertainment

EXPRESS YOURSELF!


 in support of free expression



The information presented here by the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) may be freely redistributed in its entirety, provided that readers are informed that the information was obtained from NCAC's World Wide Web site and that credit is given to the appropriate source of whatever information is used. Permission is expressly granted for the information obtained to be made available for file transfer from installations offering unrestricted anonymous file transfer on the Internet. Information found here may not be sold for profit or incorporated in commercial documents without the written permission from the National Coalition Against Censorship.

©Copyright 2005 NCAC
WEB DESIGN
Jeanne Criscola Criscola Design

free speech first amendment censorship

 
CASE NAME: Hoepker v. Kruger
CITATION: 200 F.Supp.2d 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)
Topics: Copyright and Fair Use

Plaintiffs Hoepker, a German photographer, and his model sued Barbara Kruger for copyright infringement and invasion of privacy. Kruger, a well-known artist specializing in composite works combining photographs and texts, had taken Hoepker’s photograph of the model holding a magnifying glass over her eye, and superimposed the words “It’s a small world but not if you have to clean it” on top of it. With Kruger’s permission, the Museum of Contemporary Art L.A. and the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York (also defendants) publicized the exhibit in newsletters and brochures and featured the composite on postcards, note cubes, magnets and t-shirts and in exhibit catalogues.


The Court found that the model’s right to privacy was not violated. To succeed on a right to privacy claim in New York, one must prove (1) the use of one’s name, portrait, picture, or voice; (2) for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade; (3) without consent; and (4) within the state of New York. The Court found that Kruger had used Hoepker’s picture without consent within the state of New York but had not done so for the purposes of trade. Rather, Kruger’s work, when displayed in books or in galleries, was pure artistic expression (not commercial speech), and the newsletters and souvenirs were permissible because they simply publicized to a wider audience Kruger’s permissible use of the collage, meaning that the newsletters and souvenirs constituted “ancillary use.” Similarly, with respect to the merchandise items, it was the broader dissemination of the artistic expression that primarily motivated the transaction, not the personality of the model for purposes of selling merchandise, as might have been the case if the merchandise had been marketed on a mass basis with a photograph of Marilyn Monroe, for example. Thus, the First Amendment shielded Kruger’s work from the right to privacy claim.

The Court dismissed the claim of copyright infringement. Due to the historical development of the Copyright Act and Hoepker’s status as a foreign artist, his work was in the public domain, or without copyright protection, during the time in which Kruger created her composite.

These materials are not intended, and should not be used, as legal advice. They necessarily contain generalizations that are not applicable in all jurisdictions or circumstances. Moreover, court decisions may be superceded by subsequent rulings, and may be subject to alternative interpretations. Corrections, clarification, and additions are welcome. Please send to ncac@ncac.org.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Action Alerts

» National

» Eastern

» Central

» Mountain

» Pacific


» email alert sign-up


» report censorship!