Copyright Troll Lawsuit Over Duct Taped Banana Picture

from the weak-copyright dept

Back in December, it's likely you heard the wacky story about the "art installation" at the Art Basel gallery in Florida of a banana duct taped to the wall, which sold for $120,000. You may have also heard about how someone stepped in and ate the banana, but the original purchasers were still happy, despite the recognized absurdity of the whole thing. Anyway, because it's been a few months since we last had a story about copyright and bananas, we need to tell you that a copyright lawsuit has been filed against the owners of the website ClickOrlando, claiming that they used a photograph of the duct taped banana taken by John Taggart without licensing it in its article about the artwork. The lawsuit was filed by frequently in trouble copyright troll, Richard Liebowitz. The lawsuit was first reported by Law360, though it's behind their paywall.

Given Liebowitz's role, I immediately wondered how legit the lawsuit was. It is certainly possible that a news org might infringe on someone's copyright, though news organizations can frequently claim fair use under the law, especially since "news reporting" is one of the defined categories for fair use. After seeing the actual exhibits, I'm actually left wondering whether or not Taggart's copyright is valid at all. Straight from the complaint's Exhibit B here is the supposedly infringing use:

So... I have questions. First, how is Liebowitz sure that this is Taggart's photo? The banana was on display for a few days and tons of people were able to come by and photograph it. The images do look the same, so it could be. The banana coloration certainly looks the same, though I imagine that would be true for lots of people who took a picture around the same time.

But, still, remember that copyright is only supposed to cover the creative input of the photographer. Often that includes things like the positioning, framing, lighting, etc. But, in this case, how much of that came from Taggart vs. the gallery? Obviously the artwork was set up in the gallery. Taggart had no say in the positioning of the banana. The lighting was also done by the gallery. So what is the creativity here? Taking a photo head on? How much of the wall is included in the background? It is difficult to see how those choices are deserving of much in the way of copyright. That is, even if there is a copyright here, it would be a very, very thin layer of copyright. On top of that, it would seem that the site would have very strong fair use arguments. Beyond the fact that it was used for reporting, and beyond the fact that whatever copyright interest Taggart might have would be quite weak, the fact that tons of visitors to the gallery took similar pictures of the banana would suggest that Taggart's market was limited, and thus this use would not have much of an impact on the wider market.

While this lawsuit might not be quite as egregiously bad as some of Liebowitz's other lawsuits, it's still pretty bananas.

Filed Under: banana, clickorlando, fair use, john taggart, richard liebowitz

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Rekrul, 13 Feb 2020 @ 2:11pm

    Re: Re:

    The intrinsic value of (especially modern) art sometimes escapes me. Artists often ascribe underlying metaphoric meaning to their works and sometimes the public picks up on those assertions.

    My favorite art-related humorous story, which has been going around for years;

    A bunch of visitors to a museum were standing around commenting on an art piece consisting of a bunch of rusty plumbing parts, debating what it meant, the brilliance of the artist, etc. Then a plumber emerged from an employee area, gathered up all the parts and dumped them in a trash can.

    It's probably a joke, but it could very well be real. You can throw pretty much anything in the corner of a museum and most people will believe it's art. And even if they don't actually think it's art themselves, few will say it for fear that others will look down on them for not appreciating it. You could put up a canvas that a monkey flung his feces against, but if you give it a fancy name and pretend that you made it intentionally, people will stand around debating your "vision".

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.