Mendler v. Winterland Productions, Ltd.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
207 F.3d 1119 (2000)
- Written by Sarah Holley, JD
Facts
Jeffrey Mendler (plaintiff) was a professional photographer who signed a licensing agreement with Winterland Productions, Ltd. (defendant), a manufacturer of screen-printed apparel. Pursuant to the agreement, Mendler provided Winterland with numerous photographs of the America’s Cup yacht race, most notably an image entitled “San Diego’s America’s Cup” that depicted one yacht overtaking another in a tacking duel. The license allowed Winterland the use of the photographs as “guides, models, and examples, for illustrations to be used on screen-printed t-shirts or other sportswear.” By 1992, Winterland had begun marketing t-shirts produced under this agreement featuring illustrations modelled after Mendler’s image of the tacking duel. By 1995, however, Mendler learned that Winterland had put out a new line of t-shirts depicting the same scene, but as a digitally altered version rather than an illustration. Mendler complained to Winterland that this use of his image was not authorized by the agreement. When the ensuing negotiations failed, Mendler registered his photographs with the register of copyrights and brought suit against Winterland for infringement. The district court held for Winterland, finding that its use of the image was within the scope of the license agreement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kozinski, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
