Stern v. Lavender

• Decision Date: 20 July 2018
• Docket Number: 16 Civ. 9886 (PAE)
• Citation: 319 F.Supp.3d 650
• Parties: Shannah Laumeister STERN, as Trustee of the Bert Stern 2010 Trust and Marital Trust and Bert Stern Productions LLC, Plaintiffs, v. Lisa LAVENDER and Lynette Lavender, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

319 F.Supp.3d 650

Shannah Laumeister STERN, as Trustee of the Bert Stern 2010 Trust and Marital Trust and Bert Stern Productions LLC, Plaintiffs,

v.Lisa LAVENDER and Lynette Lavender, Defendants.

16 Civ. 9886 (PAE)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed July 20, 2018

Alan Behr, Helene Marian Freeman, Phillips Nizer LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Niall Mac Giollabhui, New York, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

Paul A. Engelmayer, United States District JudgeTwo months before she died in August 1962, Marilyn Monroe posed at the Bel-Air Hotel in Los Angeles for a series of photographs—known as the "Last Sitting"—taken by the famed photographer Bert Stern. Soon after Monroe's death, some of those photographs were published in Vogue magazine. They became iconic.

This case centers on claims that defendants Lisa and Lynette Lavender ("the Lavenders") infringed copyright with respect to various Last Sitting photographs. Stern's widow, Shannah Laumeister Stern (as trustee of Stern's testamentary trust), and Stern's production company, Bert Stern Productions LLC ("BSP", and collectively, "plaintiffs"), bring claims against the Lavenders, former longtime assistants to Stern. They claim that the Lavenders, without a license to do so, took a number of actions constituting copyright infringement. These mostly involved the reproduction, offer, and sale (on sites including eBay and Amazon) of modified versions of certain of these photographs,

The parties have now cross-moved for summary judgment, in whole or part. The motions implicate two broad questions. First, and most consequential, was Bert Stern—and today are the successors to his rights—the rightful owners of the copyright interests in these photographs? The Lavenders claim that Stern never had such rights. They claim that the photographs of Monroe taken by Stern were in fact "works for hire" whose copyright belongs to Condé Nast, publisher of Vogue , which helped arrange Stern's photo shoots with Monroe. Therefore, they claim, Stern's heirs cannot maintain this action. Second, assuming that Stern was the rightful copyright owner, did Stern gift certain photographs to the Lavenders, and did he authorize the Lavenders to make, modify, and sell, following his death, copies of the Monroe photographs? The Lavenders claim that Stern did so shortly before he died. Plaintiffs dispute this.

In the decision that follows, the Court resolves the first of these two broad issues, relating to ownership of copyright in the Last Sitting photographs. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Stern was—and that his successors in interest are—the rightful owner(s) of the copyright to the photographs. As to this issue, the Lavenders have not adduced evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact.

As to the claims that the Lavenders have infringed plaintiffs' copyright through various actions since Stern's death, however, material disputes of fact preclude summary judgment on most of these claims, as well as plaintiffs' non-copyright claims brought under the Lanham Act and state law. The disputed fact issues centrally include whether Stern, before his death, gave gifts to the Lavenders of certain Last Sitting photographs, either in original or modified form, and/or whether he authorized them, after his death, to make and sell reproductions of those works, including in "poster" form. The disputed fact issues also include whether Stern authorized the Lavenders to, after his death, sign his name to certificates of authenticity issued along with photographs that they sold.

The Court does, however, resolve two narrower issues.

First, the Court holds, with the Lavenders, that—assuming arguendo that the Lavenders were found to be the outright owners of certain photographs per gifts from Stern—it was fair use for the Lavenders, in the course of selling such work on Internet sites such as eBay, to display online an image of the object offered for sale. This holding does not, however, dispose of any claim brought, because the Lavenders' ownership of Stern's photographs is disputed.

Second, the Court grants summary judgment to plaintiffs on the Lavenders' one surviving counterclaim, which alleged a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), in connection with "take-down" notices that plaintiffs sent to eBay in an attempt to block sales of original and modified Stern prints.

The case will proceed now to trial, within the parameters set by these rulings.

I. Facts¹

A. Stern and "The Last Sitting"

In June 1962, Bert Stern, a celebrated commercial and fine-art photographer known for his photographs of celebrities of his era, including Sophia Loren, Audrey Hepburn, and Elizabeth Taylor, JSF ¶ 1, photographed Marilyn Monroe at the Bel-Air Hotel in Los Angeles. Id. ¶ 2. Taken over three sittings, Stern's 2,571 photographs of Monroe are known collectively as the Last Sitting. JSF ¶¶ 11, 15. Stern later wrote at length about the sittings themselves and the events leading up to them, including his memorable interactions with Monroe, in The Last Sitting , a 188-page book published in 1982 and excerpted at length in a contemporaneous Vogue magazine article. See JSF ¶¶ 12, 14; id. Ex. 3 ("1982 Vogue Article"). Later in this decision, the Court recaps Stern's account of the events leading to the sittings, because that account is central to the Lavenders' claim here that Stern's photographs were works for hire whose copyright belongs to Condé Nast, which had arranged aspects of the sittings with the intent of publishing some of Stern's photographs in Vogue , of which it was publisher.

On August 5, 1962, shortly after the photographs were taken, Monroe died.

On September 1, 1962, Vogue published six of the photographs. JSF ¶ 11.

On October 28, 1980, Stern entered into an agreement with William Morrow and Company, Inc. ("Morrow") to publish a subset of the Last Sitting photographs in book form. See Def. 56.1 ¶ 14; Freeman Decl. Ex. 2C (the "1980 Agreement"). In that agreement, Stern represented that he was "the sole author and proprietor of the work"—i.e. , the photographs to be published in the book—and that the work would not "infringe upon any copyright or proprietary right of any third party." 1980 Agreement at 1. Stern assigned to Morrow substantially all of his rights to publish and sell the book. Id. On September 23, 1982, Morrow published The Last Sitting ("The Last Sitting "), which contained more than 100 of Stern's June 1962 photographs of Monroe. JSF ¶ 12. As detailed below, on November 15, 1982, The Last Sitting was registered for copyright, with Stern identified as the owner of the photographs within it. Id. ¶ 13.

On June 8, 1982, shortly before Morrow published The Last Sitting, Vogue purchased, pursuant to a written agreement, pre-publication rights to print selected photographs from the book. Def. 56.1 ¶ 15; see Freeman Decl. Ex. 2A (the "1982 Agreement"). In that agreement, Vogue and Stern agreed that the magazine was "acquiring exclusive North American serial rights to the text" of The Last Sitting book, "along with the exclusive right to print selected photographs from the book or from Stern's Marilyn collection in their September 1982 issue." 1982 Agreement ¶ 1. Vogue also agreed to publish "[a]ppropriate copyright acknowledgement" in conjunction with the text and photographs, which included, on the first page of the article to be published, the following acknowledgement:

Copyright © 1982 by Bert Stern from the book THE LAST SITTING by Bert Stern, text with Annie Gottlieb, to be published by William Morrow & Company in October.

Id. ¶ 2. Vogue and Stern further agreed that "all material provided [to] Vogue Magazine for reproduction purposes is the exclusive property of Bert Stern and shall be returned to him as soon as possible." Id. ¶ 4. Pursuant to the agreement, Vogue published photographs from the book, along with text excerpted from it, in its September 1982 issue. JSF ¶ 14; see 1982 Vogue Article. The article included the agreed-upon copyright acknowledgment. See 1982 Vogue Article at 3.

On September 26, 1989, by letter from a William Morrow & Company executive, Morrow agreed to "revert[ ]" to Stern "all publication rights" that Stern had granted to Morrow in the 1980 Agreement (subject to a limited exception). See Freeman Decl., Ex. 2B; Def. 56.1 ¶ 18.

In June 1992, Stern entered into an agreement with Schirmer/Mosel Verlag GmbH ("Schirmer"), a Munich-based German publisher, to publish a second book of photographs from the Last Sitting. First Stern Decl. Ex. 1; see Def. 56.1 ¶ 19. That book, Marilyn Monroe: The Complete Last Sitting , was published in the United Kingdom on July 1, 1992 by Schirmer Art Books, Schirmer's English subsidiary. First Stern Decl. ¶ 4; see Def. 56.1 ¶ 19. It contains reproductions of all 2,571 Last Sitting photographs. Schirmer did not register this book for copyright in the United States. First Stern Decl. ¶ 5.

In ensuing years, Stern exhibited and sold prints of the Last Sitting works, including through the Staley-Wise Gallery in New York City and the Vered Gallery in East Hampton, New York. First Stern Decl. ¶ 7; see Def. 56.1 ¶ 21. Stern (and/or BSP) also licensed the reproduction of Last Sitting images for use in books, films, and magazines. These licensees included Condé Nast magazines such as Vanity Fair. See First Stern Decl. ¶ 9; id. Exs. 2, 3; Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 22–23. Condé Nast did not, at any point, register any of the Last Sitting photographs for copyright or otherwise publicly assert a copyright interest in any of them.

In 1997, Stern brought a lawsuit against Condé Nast. He alleged copyright infringement based on a publication by Condé Nast's Allure magazine of a single Last Sitting photograph. Def. 56.1 ¶ 42; see Pl. 56.1 Response ¶ 42. Condé Nast defended on the ground that it had obtained a license to use the photo from a third party licensee, Globe Photos. See MacGiollabhui Decl. Ex. D....