## Facts

- Saul Steinberg created and copyrighted a well-known illustration depicting a detailed Manhattan foreground and a sparsely rendered rest of the United States and world from a New York-centered viewpoint.
- The illustration was registered with the Copyright Office, assigned to Steinberg, and licensed for poster sales; it became widely recognized.
- Columbia Pictures and related entities released the film *Moscow on the Hudson* and circulated a promotional poster and newspaper advertisements nationwide.
- The challenged poster placed film actors at the bottom and used a background map-like image closely resembling Steinberg’s composition, including comparable Manhattan block detail, a simplified distant world, a red horizon line, a thin blue sky wash, and similar typography.
- Evidence indicated the film’s advertising personnel had access to Steinberg’s work and used it as a reference in developing the poster.
- Steinberg sued the producers, distributors, advertising agency, and newspaper publishers involved in disseminating the advertisement, alleging copyright infringement.
- Defendants denied infringement and asserted fair use (parody), estoppel, and laches.
- The actions were consolidated in the Southern District of New York; the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on copying.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants copied protectable expression from Steinberg’s copyrighted illustration, as shown by access and substantial similarity under federal copyright law.
2. Whether defendants’ use was protected by fair use on a parody theory.
3. Whether estoppel or laches barred Steinberg’s infringement claims.
4. Whether infringement and defenses could be resolved as a matter of law on summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for Steinberg on copyright infringement.
- The court found ownership and access established and held that the poster was substantially similar to protected elements of Steinberg’s work, including the overall “total concept and feel.”
- The court rejected the fair use/parody defense, concluding the poster functioned as commercial advertising and did not comment on or criticize the copyrighted work itself.
- The court rejected estoppel because defendants failed to show misleading conduct by Steinberg and reasonable detrimental reliance.
- The court rejected laches for lack of a showing of unreasonable delay and sufficient prejudice.
- The court held that, despite general caution about summary judgment in copyright cases, the undisputed record and comparison of the works permitted decision as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- A copyright plaintiff must prove ownership and copying; copying may be shown through access plus substantial similarity.
- In visual art cases, infringement may be assessed by the ordinary observer standard and the work’s “total concept and feel,” while filtering out unprotectable ideas and generic elements.
- Copying a work’s distinctive compositional choices and stylistic execution can infringe even if the defendant characterizes the borrowing as taking only an “idea.”
- Parody-based fair use requires that the secondary work target the original for commentary or criticism; use of a copyrighted “look” primarily to sell a product or service weighs strongly against fair use.
- Estoppel requires misleading conduct and reasonable reliance causing prejudice; laches requires unreasonable delay plus prejudice, and neither is established by speculation or minimal delay.

## Conclusion

The court held that the *Moscow on the Hudson* promotional poster unlawfully appropriated protectable expression from Steinberg’s illustration and that defendants could not avoid liability through parody-based fair use, estoppel, or laches, warranting summary judgment for Steinberg.


Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 663 F. Supp. 706 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)