Connection lost
Server error
Graham v. Prince Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
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 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
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
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