Marano v. The Metropolitan Museum of Art
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-08606
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Marano v. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Judge Caproni denied Marano’s motion to reconsider the ruling that the Museum’s use of his photo was fair use.
Lawrence Marano and The Metropolitan Museum of Art; the earlier dismissal based on fair use remains in place.
What happened
In Marano v. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Court had previously dismissed the case after deciding that the Museum’s use of Marano’s copyrighted photograph was fair use.
Marano asked the Court to reconsider that decision. He again argued that a prior appellate case did not apply and that more information was needed to assess whether the Museum’s use harmed possible markets for the photograph.
Judge Valerie Caproni denied the motion. She concluded that Marano had not shown a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice, and directed the Clerk to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Marano v. The Metropolitan Museum of Art · No. 1:19-cv-08606
- Valerie Caproni
- Aug. 14, 2020
Background
On July 13, 2020, the Court dismissed the case after deciding that The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s use of Lawrence Marano’s copyrighted photograph was fair use. On July 27, 2020, Marano moved for reconsideration of that decision.
Motion for Reconsideration
A motion for reconsideration is available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The standard is strict; reconsideration generally is not granted unless the court overlooked controlling decisions or information that could reasonably change its conclusion.
Marano again tried to distinguish Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd. He argued that the decision was limited to commercial book publishers. He also argued that discovery was needed to evaluate the effect of the Museum’s use on potential markets for the photograph, which relates to the fourth factor in the fair-use analysis.
Court’s Analysis
The Court rejected those arguments. It explained that Bill Graham was not limited to commercial book publishers and that the images in that case were treated as transformative even when they appeared without commentary. The Court found that the Museum used Marano’s photograph to help visitors understand and appreciate the “Frankenstein” guitar and the exhibit’s discussion of the guitar’s historical and social significance. In the Court’s view, that use changed the photograph’s character and gave it a new educational message, unlike Marano’s original expressive purpose of showing Van Halen performing.
The Court also rejected Marano’s argument that the photograph’s status as a historical artifact defeated fair use. Instead, the Court said that this status supported its earlier conclusion that the Museum used the photograph as a historical artifact to help visitors understand an exhibition object. The Court emphasized that its analysis was specific to the facts and did not authorize every museum or similar institution to use any copyrighted work without a license. The Court also found Marano’s arguments about potential markets, and his remaining arguments, unpersuasive.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni denied Marano’s motion for reconsideration. The order did not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the open motion at docket entry 19.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.