Connection lost
Server error
RINGGOLD v. BLACK ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION, INC. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
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 artist sued a TV network for using her copyrighted poster as set dressing. The court reversed summary judgment for the network, finding the unauthorized decorative use was not de minimis and likely not a fair use, as it harmed the potential licensing market for the artwork.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that using copyrighted visual art as set decoration is not automatically fair use. The analysis must consider the work’s original decorative purpose and the potential harm to the licensing market, even if the use is brief and non-transformative.
RINGGOLD v. BLACK ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION, INC. 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
Faith Ringgold, an artist, owned the copyright in a work of art titled “Church Picnic Story Quilt.” The High Museum of Art held a non-exclusive license to sell posters of the work. The defendants, HBO and BET, produced and aired an episode of the television sitcom “ROC” that used the “Church Picnic” poster as set decoration. The poster was visible in a scene set in a church hall for a total of nine times, with an aggregate duration of 26.75 seconds. In the longest and clearest instance, the poster was visible for over four seconds, with approximately 80% of the artwork observable, though not in perfect focus. The producers used a framed copy of the poster that did not include the identifying text beneath the image. Ringgold discovered the use and sued for copyright infringement. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that their use was a fair use. Ringgold appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the unauthorized inclusion of a copyrighted poster as background set decoration in a commercial television program constitute copyright infringement, or is such use excused as either de minimis or a fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107?
Reversed and remanded. The defendants’ use of the poster was not de 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 c
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the unauthorized inclusion of a copyrighted poster as background set decoration in a commercial television program constitute copyright infringement, or is such use excused as either de minimis or a fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107?
Conclusion
This case establishes that the unauthorized use of copyrighted visual art as 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
Legal Rule
A use of a copyrighted work is not de minimis if it 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 nul
Legal Analysis
The Second Circuit first rejected the defendants' argument that their use was 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 exercitation ullamco laboris nis
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The use of a copyrighted poster as TV set decoration for