cyckV4

486 LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: FAIR USE
five of Prince’s artworks were transformative as a matter of law because they “manifest[ed]
an entirely different aesthetic from Cariou’s photographs,” but remanded to the
district court regarding the five remaining artworks because it was not sufficiently clear
whether they offered a “new expression, meaning, or message.”
Prince’s “Graduation” shown to the right of Cariou’s original photograph—“Graduation” was one of the
five works remanded to the district court for a determination of whether it was sufficiently transformative;
images from the Appendix of Cariou v. Prince.
What do you think of the court’s method for evaluating transformative use? Should
a creative reuse be considered “transformative” even if it offers minimal commentary,
and the artist disavows transformative intent, as long as it presents “new expression,
meaning, or message”? Is this standard consistent with the language in Campbell v. Acuff-
Rose? Is it limited to appropriation art? Can an appellate court meaningfully determine
whether certain artistic works are transformative as a matter of law, while others are not?
5.) A Fair Use Case-Study: Multiple Copies for Classroom Use
Princeton University Press v.
Michigan Document Services, Inc.
74 F.3d 1512 (6th Cir. 1996)
RYAN, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiffs, Princeton University Press, MacMillan, Inc., and St. Martin’s Press,