Photojournalist Claims that Columbia University has Used her Work Without Permission or Proper Attribution
The plaintiff in this case, Julie Dermansky Photography LLC (“Dermansky”), is an established photographer, regarded for her work as a photojournalist documenting environmental social issues in the American South. Many institutions have purchased licenses to use Dermansky’s work in order to gain access to the unique locations and people she has available to her. Dermansky has filed a Complaint against The Trustees of Columbia University in The City of New York (“Columbia”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Dermansky alleges Columbia used her work on “Cancer Alley” in Louisiana in 3 specific ways that violated copyright law:
1. The use of a photograph depicting members of Rise St. James at a Juneteenth observance ceremony on June 19, 2020 protesting the construction of a plastics manufacturing facility (“Photograph”). This Photograph is a registered copyrighted image, and Dermansky is the sole owner of the copyright in the Photograph. The Photograph was displayed on Columbia’s publicly accessible podcast website called Columbia Race Talks: Critical Race Theory (“CRT2”) without authorization or permission. Dermansky claims the copy of the Photograph used in and distributed on the episode of the CRT2 podcast site was not transformative and should not considered a fair use.
2. Dermansky makes note that CRT2’s podcast site claims that all material published on the podcast may be used under a Creative Commons license. The license ostensibly permits the use, distribution, and reproduction of the material in a format that is non-commercial, provided by the original author and the sources are credited. Dermansky alleges this is false as applied to the use of the Photograph. Dermansky claims that the Photograph is not licensed under Creative Commons and that CRT2 had no authorization to share the Photograph in this manner.
3. According to the Complaint, all authorized publications of Dermansky’s Photographs require a license, as well as a written copyright notice to show authorship and ownership information (i.e., Copyright Management Information (“CMI”)). Dermansky has sole authorship and ownership of the Photograph, yet the attribution that Columbia used under the Photograph had “Sharon Kelly” as a co-author, which is apparently incorrect. Dermansky alleges that Columbia intentionally altered the CMI in publishing and distributing the Photograph.
The compensation or “prayer for relief” that Dermansky is asking for includes an award for monetary damages, attorney fees, permanent injunctions, and other relief the court deems appropriate. The Complaint alleges that, while Columbia has its own formal, defined copyright policy that protects original works of authorship like pictorial works and defines Columbia's institutional role in protecting third-party works, Columbia has failed to uphold this standard in the case of Dermansky. Columbia has been sent this Complaint and has yet to respond. The outcome of this case is still up in the air, but we will provide updates once they become available.