Case Review: Greenfield v. Pankey (2013)

Screen shot 2014-01-14 at 12.44.01 AMBy Irina Tarsis, Esq.*


Update: In 2014, Greenfield v. Pankey was transferred out of Souther District of New York to Western District of Texas and settled shortly thereafter. Terms of the settlement are confidential.

* * *

Chasse away Cariou v. Prince! Filed on December 20, 2013 with amended complaint submitted on the New Year’s Eve, Greenfield v. Pankey had the making of another exciting photographer v. artist case. Plaintiff, Lois Greenfield, a dance photographer, alleged that Jill Pankey, a painter, basing some of her canvases on Greenfield’s photos.

Screen shot 2014-01-14 at 12.43.37 AMAccording to the complaint, Greenfield is “one of the country’s foremost dance photographers” who does not photograph dance performances but instead “directs and composes unique dance imagery in her studio.” Defendant, at one time art faculty at Texas State University, allegedly used Greenfield’s photographs in more than 20 of her paintings. After a third party noticed that Pankey’s works were based on Greenfield’s photos,Pankey admitted to using photos of dancers as inspiration for her paintings and tried to secure Greenfield’s permission to copy her work.

While Pankey is not a New York resident — she resides in Texas — New York Federal Court seems to have jurisdiction to decide the dispute because Defendant promoted her work to New York residents and exhibited her paintings in Manhattan gallery shows.

Screen shot 2014-01-14 at 12.33.27 AMCases involving copyright infringement are increasingly frequent, see for example Gray v. Koons (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2015), Graham v. Prince, 1:15-cv-10160 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2016), and where there are allegations of willful copyright infringement, infringer may be subject to maximum statutory damages, actual damages and litigation costs as well as injunction against using underlying copyrighted materials not to mention the possibility of distraction of the infringing works or other disposition.

Source: Complaint, Greenfield v. Pankey, 1:13-cv-09025-PGG  (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2013)

*Disclaimer: This article is intended as general information, not legal advice, and is no substitute for seeking representation.

8 thoughts on “Case Review: Greenfield v. Pankey (2013)

  1. This would have been a simple collaborative effort showcasing Greenfield’s compositional genius. I hope that this can be settled and that Pankey’s derivative works are not destroyed. This flatters Greenfield in a pretty impressive way, assuming the proceeds are properly shared and derivative credit properly given.

    • Thanks for your comment, Mario. Your points regarding profit sharing and settling out of court are valid and worth exploring. Greenfield does have valid copyright to her photographs and Pankey, having copied them without getting a license, will have a hard time proving that her use of the photographs was transformative. For example, see Cariou v. Prince, 11-1197-cv. (2nd Cir, 2013).

      • Thank you so much for your answer Irina. In my Argentina all derivative works has to be authorized by the author if not copyright is infringed and the authour can seek damages. If I understood right this authotization from the author od the original work is not always required? Must the authour of the derivative work share profits with the authour of the original?

Comments welcomed

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s