Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

No Substantial Similarity in Photo Used in TV Movie

By Sheri Qualters
January 31, 2013

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that two television production companies didn't violate a photographer's copyright when they used an image they created that was similar to his photo ' depicting an imposter, who called himself Clark Rockefeller, and his daughter ' in a made-for-TV movie. Harney v. Sony Television Pictures Inc., 11-1760. The appeals court affirmed a summary judgment ruling for Sony Pictures Television Inc. and A&E Television Networks LLC.

The case concerned plaintiff Donald Harney's photo of Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter and his daughter Reigh leaving a church in Boston's Beacon Hill neighborhood on Palm Sunday, March 31, 2007. The television companies used the disputed image in a movie titled Who Is Clark Rockefeller?

In June 2009, Gerhartsreiter was convicted in Massachusetts Superior Court for the July 2008 parental kidnapping of Reigh, and on charges of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Gerhartsreiter has also been charged in California with murdering Jonathan Sohus, who disappeared at a time when Gerhartsreiter was renting a guesthouse at Sohus' mother's San Marino, CA, home.

In May 2011, Judge Rya Zobel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts found that the Harney and defendants' images “share the factual content but not Harney's expressive elements.” Judge Zobel held that the clothing and pose are similar, but the Sony image excludes the palm leaf held by Reigh and eliminates the church. “This limited sharing is not enough to establish substantial similarity and copyright infringement,” Zobel wrote.

Harney appealed and the First Circuit heard oral arguments in May 2012. Senior Judge Kermit Lipez wrote the appeals court opinion, joined by judges Jeffrey Howard and Juan Torruella. Lipez noted that neither the subject matter of the earlier work nor the arrangement of Reigh sitting on her father's shoulders is attributable to Harney.

The appellate panel went on to identify the expressive choices in Harney's work that are original. Following that dissection, the panel considered whether any reasonable jury focusing only on the original elements would find the defendant's work substantially similar to the plaintiff's. “Sony copied little of Harney's original work ' only the placement of Gerhartsreiter and Reigh in the photograph ' and no jury could conclude that the similarity resulting solely from that copying is substantial,” Lipez wrote.

Quoting Second Circuit case law, Lipez determined that a reasonable jury comparing the two works could not conclude that an ordinary observer would find that they have the same aesthetic appeal.


Sheri Qualters is Boston Bureau Chief for The National Law Journal, an ALM affiliate of Entertainment Law & Finance.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that two television production companies didn't violate a photographer's copyright when they used an image they created that was similar to his photo ' depicting an imposter, who called himself Clark Rockefeller, and his daughter ' in a made-for-TV movie. Harney v. Sony Television Pictures Inc., 11-1760. The appeals court affirmed a summary judgment ruling for Sony Pictures Television Inc. and A&E Television Networks LLC.

The case concerned plaintiff Donald Harney's photo of Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter and his daughter Reigh leaving a church in Boston's Beacon Hill neighborhood on Palm Sunday, March 31, 2007. The television companies used the disputed image in a movie titled Who Is Clark Rockefeller?

In June 2009, Gerhartsreiter was convicted in Massachusetts Superior Court for the July 2008 parental kidnapping of Reigh, and on charges of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Gerhartsreiter has also been charged in California with murdering Jonathan Sohus, who disappeared at a time when Gerhartsreiter was renting a guesthouse at Sohus' mother's San Marino, CA, home.

In May 2011, Judge Rya Zobel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts found that the Harney and defendants' images “share the factual content but not Harney's expressive elements.” Judge Zobel held that the clothing and pose are similar, but the Sony image excludes the palm leaf held by Reigh and eliminates the church. “This limited sharing is not enough to establish substantial similarity and copyright infringement,” Zobel wrote.

Harney appealed and the First Circuit heard oral arguments in May 2012. Senior Judge Kermit Lipez wrote the appeals court opinion, joined by judges Jeffrey Howard and Juan Torruella. Lipez noted that neither the subject matter of the earlier work nor the arrangement of Reigh sitting on her father's shoulders is attributable to Harney.

The appellate panel went on to identify the expressive choices in Harney's work that are original. Following that dissection, the panel considered whether any reasonable jury focusing only on the original elements would find the defendant's work substantially similar to the plaintiff's. “Sony copied little of Harney's original work ' only the placement of Gerhartsreiter and Reigh in the photograph ' and no jury could conclude that the similarity resulting solely from that copying is substantial,” Lipez wrote.

Quoting Second Circuit case law, Lipez determined that a reasonable jury comparing the two works could not conclude that an ordinary observer would find that they have the same aesthetic appeal.


Sheri Qualters is Boston Bureau Chief for The National Law Journal, an ALM affiliate of Entertainment Law & Finance.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?