A federal judge rejected a lawsuit claiming the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame broke the law by using a copyrighted photo of Eddie Van Halen in a museum exhibit.
Dismissing a case filed by rock photographer Neil Zlozower, Judge Christopher A. Boyko said the Rock Hall made legal “fair use” of the image — a black-and-white photo of late-’70s Van Halen in the recording studio — by using it in an exhibit about famous guitars.
Related
Even though the Hall made a “nearly exact” copy of a portion of the photo, the judge says it did so for a very different purpose from the original: “The court concludes that defendant’s use of plaintiff’s copyrighted photographs is fair use,” the judge wrote.
Zlozower filed his case last year, claiming the Hall needed a license to show the photo in the exhibit. He claimed the Cleveland institution didn’t even include credit or a source for the image when it used it in the eight-foot-tall display about Eddie Van Halen’s guitars.
The Rock Hall was just the latest company to face the wrath of Zlozower, a veteran rock photog who snapped pics of Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones and Bruce Springsteen over a decades-long career. Since 2016, court records show he’s filed nearly 60 copyright cases over images of Elvis Costello, Guns N’ Roses, Mötley Crüe and more.
The museum fired back in January, claiming it had made fair use of the image because it was part of a broader effort to “educate the public about the history of rock and roll music.” The Rock Hall claimed it had “transformed” Zlozower’s original from a photo of the band into a ”historical artifact to underscore the importance of Eddie Van Halen’s musical instruments.”
In ruling on Monday (Nov. 10), Judge Boyko agreed with that argument. While Zlozower’s original photo aimed “to promote” Van Halen and “emphasize the band’s fun-loving nature,” he said the Hall’s display aimed to illustrate the significance of Eddie Van Halen’s guitar in “the history of rock and roll.”
“Looking at plaintiff’s photographs and defendant’s exhibit side-by-side and in light of copyright law, the court finds that defendant’s use adds new meaning and is transformative,” the judge wrote. “This is true although the copying is nearly exact.”
Neither side immediately returned requests for comment on Monday.
