What did the court decide in Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures?

The Second Circuit said Paramount’s ad was a protected parody and therefore a fair use of Annie Leibovitz’s photograph.

Why did parody help the defendant?

Because the ad poked fun at the original image and did not replace the market for the photograph or its licensed uses.

Which fair use factors were important?

Parodic purpose and limited market harm carried weight. Even though the use was commercial, the transformation supported fair use.

Does a parody need to copy a lot?

A parody may copy enough to ‘conjure up’ the original, and sometimes more, if the copying helps make the joke clear.

Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures

2d Cir. 1998 Newman, Calabresi, Cudahy 137 F.3d 109 Copyright • Fair Use • Parody ~6 min

AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi • LOCATION: India • PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-11-01

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: fair use parody, Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: copyright, Second Circuit, 137 F.3d 109

Quick Summary

Paramount ran a movie ad that mimicked Annie Leibovitz’s famous Demi Moore pregnancy photo. The court said this ad was a parody and counted as fair use. Even though the ad was commercial, it made a new joke, did not replace the market for the original photo, and could copy enough to remind viewers of the original.

```

Issues

Does a commercial parody of a photograph qualify as fair use?
How do the four fair use factors apply to a parody in an advertisement?
Can copying “more than necessary” still be fair when it helps the joke land?

Rules

Four Factors: purpose/character of use; nature of work; amount/substantiality; market effect.
Parody Principle: A parody may copy recognizable elements to “conjure up” the original if it adds new meaning or message.
Market Harm: If the parody does not act as a substitute or harm the licensing market, this favors fair use.
Commercial ≠ Automatically Unfair: Commercial use is one factor; it does not decide the case by itself.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline illustration for the case facts

1991: Annie Leibovitz shoots Demi Moore’s nude pregnancy cover for Vanity Fair.

1993: Paramount promotes Naked Gun 33⅓ with an ad: Leslie Nielsen’s face on a pregnant model in a similar pose and look.

Suit Filed: Leibovitz sues for copyright infringement.

District Court: Summary judgment for Paramount—ad is a parody and fair use.

Appeal (1998): Second Circuit affirms—still fair use.

Arguments

Appellant (Leibovitz)

The ad copied the look and feel of the photo, including pose and lighting.
The use was commercial advertising, not commentary.
The copying went beyond what was needed to recall the original.

Respondent (Paramount)

This was a parody that mocked the iconic image.
Any close similarity was needed so viewers “get the joke.”
The ad did not replace or harm the market for the original or its licenses.

Judgment

The Second Circuit upheld summary judgment for Paramount. The court treated the ad as a parody that added new meaning and did not cause market harm. Commercial context did not defeat fair use.

Ratio (Core Reason)

A work that parodies a well-known photograph may copy distinctive elements if this helps audiences recognize the target and understand the joke. When the parody changes meaning and does not invade the photo’s market, fair use can apply even in advertising.

Why It Matters

Sets a student-friendly example of parody as fair use after Campbell v. Acuff-Rose.
Shows that commercial ads can still be fair if they transform and do not harm the market.
Clarifies that “conjure up” may allow more copying when needed for the joke.

Key Takeaways

Parody transforms the original with new meaning or message.
No market substitute: parody should not replace licenses for the original image.
Commercial factor is not a knockout blow to fair use.
Enough copying is allowed to make the parody recognizable.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: P.A.R.O.D.Y.

Purpose = parody
Amount = enough to recall
Recognition = joke lands
Original market unharmed
Doesn’t substitute
Yes, even if commercial

3-Step Hook

Spot the parody.
Run the four factors.
Ask: market harm? If no—fair use likely.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Is Paramount’s ad a fair use parody of Leibovitz’s photograph?
Rule	Four-factor fair use test; parody may copy enough to recall the original if it adds new meaning and causes no market harm.
Application	Ad closely mimicked the look to make the joke clear; transformed tone and message; no proven market loss for the photo or licenses.
Conclusion	Fair use; judgment for Paramount affirmed.

Glossary

Parody: A work that imitates another to comment on it or joke about it.
Conjure Up: Copying just enough of the original so the audience recognizes it.
Market Harm: Loss of sales or licenses for the original due to the secondary use.