Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc.

Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

February 5, 2013, Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California; August 7, 2013, Filed

No. 11-56573, No. 11-57160

Opinion

 [***1804]   [*1173]  SUMMARY1

Copyright / Fair Use

The panel affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants but vacated  [**2] the district court's award of attorneys' fees in an artist's action alleging violations of the Copyright Act and the Lanham Act in a rock band's unauthorized use of an illustration in the video backdrop of its stage show.

The panel held that the video backdrop was a fair use under the Copyright Act. First, the purpose and character of the use was transformative because the video altered the expressive content or message of the illustration, and the use was not overly commercial. Second, the illustration was a creative work, but its nature included its status as a widely disseminated work of street art. Third, the defendants copied most of the illustration, but it was not meaningfully divisible. Fourth, the video backdrop did not affect the value of the illustration.

The panel affirmed the grant of summary judgment on Lanham Act claims on the basis that the artist failed to establish any trademark rights.

Vacating the district court's award of attorneys' fees to the defendants under the Copyright Act, the panel held that, despite the defendants' success on the fair use defense, the plaintiff did not act objectively unreasonably.

OPINION

O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:

We must decide whether a  [**3] rock band's unauthorized use of an artist's illustration in the video backdrop of its stage show was a "fair use" under copyright law.

Plaintiff Derek Seltzer is an artist and illustrator. In 2003, he created Scream Icon, a drawing of a screaming, contorted face. Seltzer made copies of Scream Icon, including large posters and smaller prints with adhesive backs, which he has sold and given away. See Appendix A. Many  [*1174]  Scream Icon posters have been plastered on walls as street art in Los Angeles and elsewhere. Since then, Seltzer has moved on to other projects, but at times he has used Scream Icon to identify himself and his work's presence by placing it on advertisements for his gallery appearances, and at some point he licensed it for use in a music video.

Defendant Roger Staub is a photographer and professional set-lighting and video designer. In 2008, Staub photographed a brick wall at the corner of Sunset Boulevard and Gardner Avenue in Los Angeles which was covered in graffiti and posters—including a weathered and torn copy of Scream Icon. See Appendix B. Staub found it "interesting" and saved this picture in his personal library.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

725 F.3d 1170 *; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16322 **; 107 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1803 ***; Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P30,469; 2013 WL 4007803

DERECK SELTZER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREEN DAY, INC., a corporation; GREEN DAY TOURING, INC., a corporation; GREEN DAY, a partnership; BILLIE JOE ARMSTRONG, an individual; FRANK EDWIN WRIGHT, III, an individual, AKA Tre Cool; MICHAEL RYAN PRITCHARD, an individual, AKA Dirnt Mike; WARNER BROS. RECORDS, INC., a corporation; INFECT PRODUCTIONS, a partnership; ROGER STAUB, an individual; PERFORMANCE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN, a business entity (form unknown), Defendants-Appellees.

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02103-PSG-PLA. Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding.

Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134388 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 17, 2011)Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92393 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 18, 2011)

Disposition: No. 11-56573 AFFIRMED; No. 11-57160 VACATED AND REMANDED. All parties to bear their own costs on appeal.

CORE TERMS

transformative, Scream, Icon, video, fair use, district court, backdrop, artist, infringing, factors, song, summary judgment, attorney's fees, photographs, message, altered, posters, band, copyrighted work, appearance, concert, weighs, illustration, quotation, copies, street, music video, deposition, trademark, graffiti

Copyright Law, Fair Use, Fair Use Determination, Factors, Defenses, General Overview, Copyright Infringement Actions, Civil Infringement Actions, Judicial Review, Trademark Law, Federal Unfair Competition Law, Lanham Act, Business & Corporate Compliance, Scope, Antitrust & Trade Law, Trade Practices & Unfair Competition, State Regulation, Claims, Damages, Types of Damages, Costs & Attorney Fees

Copyright Law, Fair Use, Fair Use Determination, Factors, Defenses, General Overview, Copyright Infringement Actions, Civil Infringement Actions, Judicial Review, Trademark Law, Federal Unfair Competition Law, Lanham Act, Business & Corporate Compliance, Scope, Antitrust & Trade Law, Trade Practices & Unfair Competition, State Regulation, Claims, Damages, Types of Damages, Costs & Attorney Fees