Graham v. Prince Case Brief
Audio lesson available for this case
LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An appropriation artist used a photographer’s Instagram-posted image in his own artwork. The court denied the artist’s motion to dismiss, finding that his fair use defense could not be decided without a factual record, as his alterations to the original photograph were minimal.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that for appropriation art, minimal alterations to a source work, such as re-framing it within a social media interface, are insufficient to establish transformative use as a matter of law at the motion to dismiss stage, distinguishing it from Cariou v. Prince.
Graham v. Prince Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Donald Graham is a professional photographer who created the copyrighted photograph Rastafarian Smoking a Joint. Defendant Richard Prince, a well-known appropriation artist, created a work titled Untitled (Portrait) for his New Portraits exhibition. To create Untitled, Prince took a screenshot of an Instagram post by a third party that featured a slightly cropped version of Graham’s photograph. Prince added his own cryptic comment (“Canal Zinian da lam jam”) below the image within the Instagram interface before taking the screenshot. He then enlarged this screenshot and printed it on a 4x5 foot canvas. The work was exhibited and sold by the Gagosian Gallery. Prince’s alterations to Graham’s original photograph were limited to the cropping done by the Instagram user and the addition of the Instagram frame and comments; the photograph itself was not otherwise changed in composition, color, or media. Graham sued Prince and the gallery for copyright infringement. Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting the affirmative defense of fair use.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can an appropriation artist establish the affirmative defense of fair use on a motion to dismiss where his work consists of reproducing a copyrighted photograph with minimal alterations, such as placing it within a social media frame and adding a short comment?
No. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud ex
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Can an appropriation artist establish the affirmative defense of fair use on a motion to dismiss where his work consists of reproducing a copyrighted photograph with minimal alterations, such as placing it within a social media frame and adding a short comment?
Conclusion
This decision serves as a crucial counterpoint to *Cariou*, establishing that the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris ni
Legal Rule
The determination of fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107 is a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
Legal Analysis
The court applied the four-factor fair use test from 17 U.S.C. § Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The S.D.N.Y. denied a motion to dismiss a copyright suit against