New Copyright Infringement Case: Greenfield v. Pankey

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

Chasse away Cariou v. Prince! Filed on December 20, 2013 with amended complaint submitted on the New Year’s Eve, Greenfield v. Pankey has the making of another exciting photographer v. artist case. Plaintiff, Lois Greenfield is a dance photographer. She is accusing Jill Pankey of basing her paintings on Greenfield’s photos, 33 photos to be exact.

According to the complaint, Greenfield is “one of the country’s foremost dance

Screen shot 2014-01-14 at 12.43.37 AM

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 used Greenfield’s photographs in more than 20 of her paintings. After a third party noticed that Pankey’s work was based on Greenfield’s photos, Pankey tried to secure Greenfields permission to copy her work. Pankey admitted to using photos of dancers as inspiration for her paintings. In an email, she even admitted to harming Greenfield but according to the complaint, defendant continued to sell her paintings online.

Screen shot 2014-01-14 at 12.43.19 AM

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 AM

Given the willful infringement alleged by Plainitff, Greenfield is seeing maximum statutory damages, actual damages and litigation costs as well as injunction against using Greenfields’s copyrighted photographs not to mention the delivery of Pankey’s paintings for for distraction or other disposition.

Complaint includes many side by side comparison’s of Greenfield’s photos and Pankey’s paintings as well as charts listing infringed and infringing works. Greenfield’s counsel is Andrew Berger with Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP.

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


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

8 thoughts on “New Copyright Infringement Case: Greenfield v. Pankey

  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