Graham v. Prince et al

Filing 265

FINAL JUDGMENT IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and personal jurisdiction over the parties. 2. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defen dants for the claims asserted against them as set forth in the Corrected Amended Complaint (the "Complaint"), and Defendants' defenses are dismissed with prejudice. 3. Defendants are enjoined from reproducing, modifying, preparing deri vative works from, displaying publicly, selling, offering to sell, or otherwise distributing the photograph Rastafarian Smoking a Joint (identified in paragraph 1 of the Complaint), the work Portrait of Rastajay92 (identified in paragraphs 4 and 32 of the Complaint), the art book (identified in paragraphs 6 and 42 of the Complaint), and the billboard (identified in paragraphs 7 and 45 of the Complaint) including any copies of any of the foregoing. 4. Plaintiff is awarded damages in an amount equal to five times the retail price for Portrait of Rastajay92 (as set forth in GG_00000466), plus all costs incurred by Plaintiff, as agreed-upon by the parties. 5. Compliance with this judgment may be enforced by Plaintiff and his successors in interest or assigns, and the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce or supervise performance under this judgment. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Sidney H. Stein on 1/24/2024) (jca)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DONALD GRAHAM, Plaintiff, V. CaseNo.1:15-cv-10160-SHS RICHARD PRINCE, GAGOSIAN GALLERY, INC . AND LAWRENCE GAGOSIAN, Defendants. FINAL JUDGMENT WHEREAS in May of 1996, Plaintiff Donald Graham authored and obtained a copyright in the photograph entitled Rastafarian Smoking a Joint, which he registered with the United States Copyright Office on October 20, 2014. WHEREAS Defendant Richard Prince incorporated Rastafarian Smoking a Joint into a work referred to as Portrait of Rastajay92; Defendant Gagosian Gallery, Inc. (which is majority owned by Defendant Laurence Gagosian) exhibited Portrait of Rastajay92 at its Madison A venue gallery in New York; Gagosian Gallery, Inc. caused a companion catalog to the exhibition containing Portrait of Rastajay92 to be distributed; and Mr. Prince caused a billboard depicting Portrait of Rastajay92, along with other of Mr. Prince ' s New Portraits works, to be erected on the West Side Highway in New York City. WHEREAS on December 30, 2015, Plaintiff initiated the present litigation. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and personal jurisdiction over the parties . 2. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants for the claims asserted against them as set forth in the Corrected Amended Complaint (the "Complaint"), and Defendants' defenses are dismissed with prejudice. 3. Defendants are enjoined from reproducing, modifying, preparing derivative works from, displaying publicly, selling, offering to sell, or otherwise distributing the photograph Rastafarian Smoking a Joint (identified in paragraph 1 of the Complaint), the work Portrait of Rastajay92 (identified in paragraphs 4 and 32 of the Complaint), the art book (identified in paragraphs 6 and 42 of the Complaint), and the billboard (identified in paragraphs 7 and 45 of the Complaint) including any copies of any of the foregoing. 4. Plaintiff is awarded damages in an amount equal to five times the retail price for Portrait of Rastajay92 (as set forth in GG_00000466), plus all costs incurred by Plaintiff, as agreed-upon by the parties. 5. Compliance with this judgment may be enforced by Plaintiff and his successors in interest or assigns, and the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce or supervise performance under this judgment. me ' istrict Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?