Editing Fair use (section)

== Fair use in particular areas ==
=== Computer code ===
The ''Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.'' case revolves around the use of application programming interfaces (APIs) used to define functionality of the Java programming language, created by Sun Microsystems and now owned by Oracle Corporation. Google used the APIs' definition and their structure, sequence and organization (SSO) in creating the Android operating system to support the mobile device market. Oracle had sued Google in 2010 over both patent and copyright violations, but after two cycles, the case matter was narrowed down to whether Google's use of the definition and SSO of Oracle's Java APIs (determined to be copyrightable) was within fair use. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Google, stating that while Google could defend its use in the nature of the copyrighted work, its use was not transformative, and more significantly, it commercially harmed Oracle as they were also seeking entry to the mobile market. However, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed this decision, deciding that Google's actions satisfy all four tests for fair use, and that granting Oracle exclusive rights to use Java APIs on mobile markets "would interfere with, not further, copyright's basic creativity objectives."

=== Documentary films ===
In April 2006, the filmmakers of the ''[[Loose Change]]'' series were served with a lawsuit by [[Jules and Gédéon Naudet]] over the film's use of their footage, specifically footage of the firefighters discussing the collapse of the [[World Trade Center (1973–2001)|World Trade Center]].
With the help of an intellectual property lawyer, the creators of Loose Change successfully argued that a majority of the footage used was for historical purposes and was significantly transformed in the context of the film. They agreed to remove a few shots that were used as B-roll and served no purpose to the greater discussion. The case was settled and a potential multimillion-dollar lawsuit was avoided.

''[[This Film Is Not Yet Rated]]'' also relied on fair use to feature several clips from copyrighted Hollywood productions. The director had originally planned to license these clips from their studio owners but discovered that studio licensing agreements would have prohibited him from using this material to criticize the entertainment industry. This prompted him to invoke the fair use doctrine, which permits limited use of copyrighted material to provide analysis and criticism of published works.

=== File sharing ===
In 2009, fair use appeared as a defense in [[Trade group efforts against file sharing|lawsuits against filesharing]]. [[Charles Nesson]] argued that file-sharing qualifies as fair use in his defense of alleged filesharer [[Joel Tenenbaum]].<ref>{{cite web|last=Anderson|first=Nate|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/harvard-prof-tells-judge-that-p2p-filesharing-is-fair-use.ars|title=Harvard prof tells judge that P2P filesharing is "fair use"|website=Ars Technica|date=May 18, 2009|access-date=June 16, 2009|archive-date=October 8, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241008080205/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/05/harvard-prof-tells-judge-that-p2p-filesharing-is-fair-use/|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Kiwi Camara]], defending alleged filesharer [[Jammie Thomas]], announced a similar defense.<ref>{{cite web|last=Anderson|first=Nate|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/harvard-law-prof-helping-in-not-1-but-3-file-sharing-cases.ars|title=Lawyer: RIAA must pay back all "$100M+" it has allegedly collected|website=Ars Technica|date=May 22, 2009|access-date=June 16, 2009|archive-date=June 14, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090614001826/http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/harvard-law-prof-helping-in-not-1-but-3-file-sharing-cases.ars|url-status=live}}</ref>
However, the Court in the case at bar rejected the idea that file-sharing is fair use.<ref>{{cite web|last=Engle|first=Eric|url=http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/copyright/sony-bmg-music-entertainment-et-al-v-tannenbaumbaum|title=Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al. v. Tannenbaum|publisher=Harvard Journal of Law and Technology|date=October 17, 2009|access-date=June 16, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100708094531/http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/copyright/sony-bmg-music-entertainment-et-al-v-tannenbaumbaum|archive-date=July 8, 2010|url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== Internet publication ===
A U.S. court case from 2003, ''[[Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.]],'' provides and develops the relationship between [[thumbnails]], [[inline linking]], and fair use. In the lower District Court case on a motion for [[summary judgment]], Arriba Soft's use of thumbnail pictures and inline linking from Kelly's website in Arriba Soft's image [[Web search engine|search engine]] was found not to be fair use. That decision was appealed and contested by Internet rights activists such as the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]], who argued that it was fair use.

On appeal, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] found in favor of the defendant, Arriba Soft. In reaching its decision, the court utilized the statutory four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution as the original artwork was. Second, the photographs had already been published, diminishing the significance of their nature as creative works. Third, although normally making a "full" replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase the exposure of the originals. In looking at all these factors as a whole, the court found that the thumbnails were fair use and remanded the case to the lower court for trial after issuing a revised opinion on July 7, 2003. The remaining issues were resolved with a [[default judgment]] after Arriba Soft had experienced significant financial problems and failed to reach a negotiated settlement.

In August 2008, Judge [[Jeremy Fogel]] of the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California|Northern District of California]] ruled in ''[[Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.]]'' that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material. The case involved Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor from [[Gallitzin, Pennsylvania]], who made a home video of her thirteen-month-old son dancing to Prince's song "[[Let's Go Crazy]]" and posted the video on [[YouTube]]. Four months later, [[Universal Music]], the owner of the copyright to the song, ordered YouTube to remove the video under the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]]. Lenz notified YouTube immediately that her video was within the scope of fair use, and she demanded that it be restored. YouTube complied after six weeks, rather than the two weeks required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Lenz then sued Universal Music in California for her legal costs, claiming the music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that represented fair use of the song.<ref>{{cite news|first=Bob|last=Egelko|title=Woman can sue over YouTube clip de-posting|url=http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Woman-can-sue-over-YouTube-clip-de-posting-3199389.php|work=San Francisco Chronicle|date=August 21, 2008|access-date=November 16, 2015|archive-date=November 17, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151117031050/http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Woman-can-sue-over-YouTube-clip-de-posting-3199389.php|url-status=live}}</ref> On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a copyright owner must affirmatively consider whether the complained of conduct constituted fair use before sending a takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, rather than waiting for the alleged infringer to assert fair use. 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015). "Even if, as Universal urges, fair use is classified as an 'affirmative defense,' we hold—for the purposes of the DMCA—fair use is uniquely situated in copyright law so as to be treated differently than traditional affirmative defenses. We conclude that because 17 U.S.C. §&nbsp;107 created a type of non-infringing use, fair use is "authorized by the law" and a copyright holder must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification under §&nbsp;512(c)."

In June 2011, Judge [[Philip Pro]] of the [[United States District Court for the District of Nevada|District of Nevada]] ruled in ''[[Righthaven v. Hoehn]]'' that the posting of an entire editorial article from the ''[[Las Vegas Review-Journal]]'' in a comment as part of an online discussion was unarguably fair use. Judge Pro noted that "Noncommercial, nonprofit use is presumptively fair. ... Hoehn posted the Work as part of an online discussion. ... This purpose is consistent with comment, for which 17 U.S.C. §&nbsp;107 provides fair use protection. ... It is undisputed that Hoehn posted the entire work in his comment on the Website. ... wholesale copying does not preclude a finding of fair use. ... there is no genuine issue of material fact that Hoehn's use of the Work was fair and summary judgment is appropriate."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2011-06-20-Order%20Granting%20Mot%20to%20Dismiss%20in%20Righthave%20v%20Hoehn%20Order.pdf|title=Righthaven v. Hoehn (District Court of Nevada)|date=June 20, 2011|access-date=April 2, 2016|archive-date=January 4, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170104183847/http://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2011-06-20-Order%20Granting%20Mot%20to%20Dismiss%20in%20Righthave%20v%20Hoehn%20Order.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that [[Righthaven]] did not even have the standing needed to sue Hoehn for copyright infringement in the first place.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://fairuse.stanford.edu/case/righthaven-llc-v-hoehn/|title=Righthaven v. Hoehn (9th Circuit)|date=May 9, 2013|access-date=April 2, 2016|archive-date=March 11, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160311053415/http://fairuse.stanford.edu/case/righthaven-llc-v-hoehn/|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Professional communities ===
In addition to considering the four fair use factors, courts deciding fair use cases also look to the standards and practices of the professional community where the case comes from.<ref name=Madison>{{cite journal|last1=Madison|first1=Michael J.|title=A Pattern-Oriented Approach to Fair Use|journal=William and Mary Law Review|date=2004|volume=45|url=http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/6048/1/Madison_Pattern_Oriented_Approach_20032004.pdf|access-date=November 16, 2015|archive-date=November 17, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151117014339/http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/6048/1/Madison_Pattern_Oriented_Approach_20032004.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> Among the communities are documentarians,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cmsimpact.org/fair-use/best-practices/documentary-filmmakers-statement-best-practices-fair-use |title=Documentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use |publisher=Center for Media & Social Impact |access-date=November 18, 2015 |archive-date=November 19, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151119094637/http://www.cmsimpact.org/fair-use/best-practices/documentary-filmmakers-statement-best-practices-fair-use |url-status=live }}</ref> librarians,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.arl.org/focus-areas/copyright-ip/fair-use/code-of-best-practices |title=Code of Best Practices in Fair Use |publisher=Association of Research Libraries |access-date=November 18, 2015 |archive-date=November 17, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151117162220/http://www.arl.org/focus-areas/copyright-ip/fair-use/code-of-best-practices |url-status=dead }}</ref> makers of Open Courseware, visual art educators,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://vraweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/VRA_FairUse_Statement_Pages_Links.pdf |title=Statement on the Fair Use of Images for Teaching, Research, and Study |publisher=Visual Resources Association |access-date=November 18, 2015 |archive-date=January 17, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160117030118/http://vraweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/VRA_FairUse_Statement_Pages_Links.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> and communications professors.<ref name=ICA>{{cite web|last1=The International Communication Association|title=Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Scholarly Research in Communication|url=http://www.cmsimpact.org/fair-use/best-practices/code-best-practices-fair-use-scholarly-research-communication|website=Center for Media and Social Impact|date=June 9, 2010 |access-date=November 16, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151116140807/http://www.cmsimpact.org/fair-use/best-practices/code-best-practices-fair-use-scholarly-research-communication|archive-date=November 16, 2015}}</ref>

Such codes of best practices have permitted communities of practice to make more informed risk assessments in employing fair use in their daily practice.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://centerforsocialmedia.org/libraries/articles/success-of-codes |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130414102653/http://centerforsocialmedia.org/libraries/articles/success-of-codes |url-status=dead |archive-date=April 14, 2013 |title=Success of Fair Use Consensus Documents |publisher=Center for Social Media |access-date=September 2, 2013 }}</ref> For instance, broadcasters, cablecasters, and distributors typically require filmmakers to obtain [[Professional liability insurance|errors and omissions insurance]] before the distributor will take on the film. Such insurance protects against errors and omissions made during the copyright clearance of material in the film. Before the ''Documentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use'' was created in 2005, it was nearly impossible to obtain errors and omissions insurance for copyright clearance work that relied in part on fair use. This meant documentarians had either to obtain a license for the material or to cut it from their films. In many cases, it was impossible to license the material because the filmmaker sought to use it in a critical way. Soon after the best practices statement was released, all errors and omissions insurers in the U.S. shifted to begin offering routine fair use coverage.<ref name=Aufderheide>{{cite book|last1=Aufderheide|first1=Patricia|last2=Jaszi|first2=Peter|title=Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in Copyright|date=2011|publisher=University of Chicago Press|location=Chicago|isbn=978-0-226-03228-3}}</ref>

=== Music sampling ===
{{further|Legal issues surrounding music sampling}}
Before 1991, [[sampling (music)|sampling]] in certain genres of music was accepted practice and the copyright considerations were viewed as largely irrelevant. The strict decision against rapper [[Biz Markie]]'s appropriation of a [[Gilbert O'Sullivan]] song in the case ''[[Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records Inc.]]''<ref name="grand-upright">{{cite court |litigants=Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records Inc. |vol=780 |reporter=F. Supp. |opinion=182 |court=S.D.N.Y. |date=1991 }}</ref> changed practices and opinions overnight. Samples now had to be licensed, as long as they rose "to a level of legally cognizable appropriation." This left the door open for the ''[[de minimis]]'' doctrine, for short or unrecognizable samples; such uses would not rise to the level of copyright infringement, because under the ''de minimis'' doctrine, "the law does not care about trifles." However, three years later, the Sixth Circuit effectively eliminated the ''de minimis'' doctrine in the ''[[Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films]]'' case, holding that artists must "get a license or do not sample".<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films |vol=383 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=390 |pinpoint=398 |court=6th Cir. |date=2004 |url=http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/6th/04a0297p.html |access-date=November 18, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060430072420/http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/6th/04a0297p.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The Court later clarified that its opinion did not apply to fair use, but between ''Grand Upright'' and ''Bridgeport'', practice had effectively shifted to eliminate unlicensed sampling.

=== Parody ===
Producers or creators of [[parody|parodies]] of a copyrighted work have been sued for infringement by the targets of their ridicule, even though such use may be protected as fair use. These fair use cases distinguish between parodies, which use a work in order to poke fun at or comment on the work itself, and [[satire]], which comments on something else. Courts have been more willing to grant fair use protections to parodies than to satires, but the ultimate outcome in either circumstance will turn on the application of the four fair use factors.

For example, when [[Tom Forsythe]] appropriated [[Barbie]] dolls for his photography project "Food Chain Barbie" (depicting several copies of the doll naked and disheveled and about to be baked in an oven, blended in a food mixer, and the like), [[Mattel]] lost its copyright infringement lawsuit against him because his work effectively parodies Barbie and the values she represents.<ref name="Mattel">{{cite court|litigants=Mattel Inc v. Walking Mountain Productions|vol=353|reporter=F.3d|opinion=792|court=9th Cir.|date=December 29, 2003|url=https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/353/353.F3d.792.01-57193.01-56695.html|access-date=November 15, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304084024/https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/353/353.F3d.792.01-57193.01-56695.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In ''[[Rogers v. Koons]]'', [[Jeff Koons]] tried to justify his appropriation of Art Rogers' photograph "Puppies" in his sculpture "String of Puppies" with the same parody defense. Koons lost because his work was not presented as a parody of Rogers' photograph in particular, but as a satire of society at large. This was insufficient to render the use fair.<ref name="Rogers">{{cite court|litigants=Rogers v. Koons|vol=960|reporter=F.2d|opinion=301|court=2d Cir.|date=April 2, 1992|url=http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/960/960.F2d.301.91-7396.91-7540.91-7442.234.235.html|access-date=November 15, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130501000913/https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/960/960.F2d.301.91-7396.91-7540.91-7442.234.235.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>

In ''[[Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc]]''<ref name="510 US 569" /> the U.S. Supreme Court recognized parody as a potential fair use, even when done for profit. [[Roy Orbison]]'s, [[Acuff-Rose Music]], had sued [[2 Live Crew]] in 1989 for their use of Orbison's "[[Oh, Pretty Woman]]" in a mocking rap version with altered lyrics. The Supreme Court viewed 2 Live Crew's version as a ridiculing commentary on the earlier work, and ruled that when the parody was itself the product rather than mere advertising, commercial nature did not bar the defense. The ''Campbell'' court also distinguished parodies from [[satire]], which they described as a broader social critique not intrinsically tied to ridicule of a specific work and so not deserving of the same use exceptions as parody because the satirist's ideas are capable of expression without the use of the other particular work.

A number of appellate decisions have recognized that a parody may be a protected fair use, including the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|Second]] (''[[Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp.]]''); the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth]] (''Mattel v. Walking Mountain Productions''); and the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|Eleventh]] Circuits (''[[Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co.]]''). In the 2001 ''Suntrust Bank'' case, Suntrust Bank and the [[Margaret Mitchell]] estate unsuccessfully brought suit to halt the publication of ''[[The Wind Done Gone]]'', which reused many of the characters and situations from ''[[Gone with the Wind (novel)|Gone with the Wind]]'' but told the events from the point of view of the enslaved people rather than the slaveholders. The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|Eleventh Circuit]], applying ''Campbell'', found that ''The Wind Done Gone'' was fair use and vacated the [[U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia|district court's]] injunction against its publication.

Cases in which a satirical use was found to be fair include ''Blanch v. Koons'' and ''Williams v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems''.<ref name=Unbundling />

=== Text and data mining ===
The transformative nature of computer based analytical processes such as [[text mining]], [[web mining]] and [[data mining]] has led many to form the view that such uses would be protected under fair use. This view was substantiated by the rulings of Judge [[Denny Chin]] in ''[[Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.]]'', a case involving mass digitisation of millions of books from research library collections. As part of the ruling that found the book digitisation project was fair use, the judge stated "Google Books is also transformative in the sense that it has transformed book text into data for purposes of substantive research, including data mining and text mining in new areas".<ref>{{cite news|last1=Rosati|first1=Eleonora|title=A Closer Look at the Google Books Library Project Decision|url=http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/a-closer-look-at-google-books-library.html|access-date=November 15, 2014|publisher=The IPKAT|date=November 17, 2013|archive-date=October 8, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241008080313/https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2013/11/a-closer-look-at-google-books-library.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=GoogleVictory>{{cite web|title=Google's Fair Use Victory|url=http://www.lawdownunder.com/google-books-project-covered-fair-use-doctrine/|website=Law Down Under|access-date=November 16, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151117031600/http://www.lawdownunder.com/google-books-project-covered-fair-use-doctrine/|archive-date=November 17, 2015|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Text and data mining was subject to further review in ''[[Authors Guild v. HathiTrust]]'', a case derived from the same digitization project mentioned above. Judge [[Harold Baer Jr.|Harold Baer]], in finding that the defendant's uses were transformative, stated that 'the search capabilities of the [HathiTrust Digital Library] have already given rise to new methods of academic inquiry such as text mining."<ref name=Hathi>{{cite court |litigants=Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust |vol=902 |reporter=F.Supp.2d |opinion=445 |court=S.D.N.Y. |date=October 10, 2012 |url=http://www.tc.umn.edu/~nasims/HathivAG10_10_12.pdf |access-date=November 16, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140921185710/http://www.tc.umn.edu/~nasims/HathivAG10_10_12.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Anderson|first1=Rick|title=The Authors Guild Loses (Again), and HathiTrust Wins–But What Does It Mean?|url=http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/07/21/the-authors-guild-loses-again-and-hathitrust-wins-but-what-does-it-mean/|access-date=November 15, 2014|publisher=the scholarly kitchen|date=July 21, 2014|archive-date=October 8, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241008080204/https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/07/21/the-authors-guild-loses-again-and-hathitrust-wins-but-what-does-it-mean/|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Reverse engineering ===
{{Main|Reverse engineering#Legality}}
There is a substantial body of fair use law regarding [[reverse engineering]] of [[computer software]], [[computer hardware|hardware]], [[network protocol]]s, [[cryptography|encryption]] and access control systems.<ref>[[b:Reverse Engineering/Legal Aspects]]</ref><ref name=ReverseEngineeringFAQ>{{cite web|title=Coders' Rights Project Reverse Engineering FAQ|url=https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation|access-date=November 16, 2015|date=August 6, 2008|archive-date=October 8, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241008080315/https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Social media ===
In May 2015, artist [[Richard Prince]] released an exhibit of photographs at the [[Gagosian Gallery]] in New York, entitled "New Portraits".<ref>{{cite web |last1=Plaugic |first1=Lizzie |title=The story of Richard Prince and his $100,000 Instagram art |url=https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/30/8691257/richard-prince-instagram-photos-copyright-law-fair-use |website=The Verge |publisher=Vox Media, Inc. |access-date=August 5, 2019 |date=May 30, 2015 |archive-date=July 29, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190729035221/https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/30/8691257/richard-prince-instagram-photos-copyright-law-fair-use |url-status=live }}</ref> His exhibit consisted of screenshots of Instagram users' pictures, which were largely unaltered, with Prince's commentary added beneath.<ref name=artnews>{{cite news |last1=Gilbert |first1=Laura |title=Richard Prince defends reuse of others' photographs |url=https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/richard-prince-defends-re-use-of-others-photographs |access-date=August 5, 2019 |newspaper=The Art Newspaper |date=October 10, 2018 |archive-date=October 8, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241008080204/https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2018/10/10/richard-prince-defends-reuse-of-others-photographs |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=caseforward>{{cite news |last1=Chow |first1=Andrew R. |title=Copyright Case Over Richard Prince Instagram Show to Go Forward |url=https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/richard-prince-defends-re-use-of-others-photographs |access-date=August 5, 2019 |agency=New York Times |date=July 20, 2017 |archive-date=August 5, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190805234334/https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/richard-prince-defends-re-use-of-others-photographs |url-status=live }}</ref> Although no Instagram users authorized Prince to use their pictures, Prince argued that the addition of his own commentary the pictures constituted fair use, such that he did not need permission to use the pictures or to pay royalties for his use.<ref name=artnews/> One of the pieces sold for $90,000. With regard to the works presented by Painter, the gallery where the pictures were showcased posted notices that "All images are subject to copyright."<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/27/richard-prince-instagram_n_7452634.html|title=Artist Richard Prince Sells Instagram Photos That Aren't His For $90K|last=Sola|first=Katie|date=May 27, 2015|newspaper=The Huffington Post|access-date=March 3, 2017|archive-date=March 4, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170304035336/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/27/richard-prince-instagram_n_7452634.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Several lawsuits were filed against Painter over the New Portraits exhibit.<ref name=caseforward/> In 2024, Richard Prince and the galleries were ordered to pay $900,000 to the photographers.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2024/01/26/judge-rules-against-richard-prince-copyright-infringement-instagram-portraits |title=Richard Prince ordered to pay damages to photographers in copyright infringement lawsuits over Instagram portraits |date=January 26, 2024 |access-date=March 25, 2024 |archive-date=October 8, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241008080204/https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2024/01/26/judge-rules-against-richard-prince-copyright-infringement-instagram-portraits |url-status=live }}</ref>