## Facts

- David Wojnarowicz, a multimedia artist, created works addressing themes including AIDS, sexuality, and religion.
- The American Family Association (AFA) and its executive director, Donald E. Wildmon, opposed public funding of certain art and circulated a pamphlet criticizing government arts funding.
- The pamphlet reproduced small, heavily cropped fragments of Wojnarowicz’s artworks, juxtaposed with condemnatory text and slogans implying taxpayer funds supported offensive art.
- The reproductions omitted titles, context, and broader themes, and the altered presentation emphasized provocative fragments.
- Wojnarowicz alleged that the pamphlet: (a) infringed copyright; (b) distorted and mutilated his work in a way that damaged his reputation in violation of New York’s Artists’ Authorship Rights Act (NYAARA); (c) misrepresented his work in violation of the Lanham Act; and (d) defamed him.
- After a preliminary injunction and an expedited bench trial (with the preliminary-injunction hearing merged into the merits), the court issued a final decision.
- Defendants challenged personal jurisdiction and venue; the court upheld both based on defendants’ New York distribution and activities and Wildmon’s involvement.

## Issues

1. Whether reproducing cropped fragments of the artworks in an advocacy pamphlet was fair use or copyright infringement.
2. Whether defendants’ cropping and recombination of the images violated NYAARA by mutilating or distorting the works in a manner prejudicial to the artist’s honor or reputation.
3. Whether the NYAARA claim was preempted by the federal Copyright Act.
4. Whether the pamphlet created Lanham Act liability for false designation of origin or false description “in connection with goods or services.”
5. Whether the pamphlet’s content and implied message were actionable defamation consistent with First Amendment limits for speech on matters of public concern.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for Wojnarowicz on the NYAARA claim and ordered injunctive relief tailored to preventing further distribution of the distorted, altered reproductions and requiring corrective measures.
- The court held defendants’ use of the cropped fragments was fair use and dismissed the copyright infringement claim.
- The court dismissed the Lanham Act claim because the challenged conduct was not in connection with goods, services, or commercial activity within § 43(a).
- The court dismissed the defamation claim, concluding Wojnarowicz failed to prove actionable defamatory falsehood made with the required level of fault for a matter of public concern.
- The court confirmed personal jurisdiction and proper venue in the Southern District of New York.

## Legal Principles

- NYAARA protects an artist’s reputational interests in the integrity of their work and can be violated by altered reproductions attributed to the artist that constitute mutilation or distortion prejudicial to honor or reputation.
- A state-law moral-rights-type claim is not preempted when it protects rights qualitatively different from federal copyright’s economic rights, such as integrity and reputational harm from altered, attributed reproductions.
- Fair use may apply to reproductions used for political criticism and public-policy advocacy; the statutory factors include purpose and character, nature of the work, amount used, and market effect.
- Market harm caused by criticism is not, by itself, dispositive against fair use when the use does not substitute for authorized demand or appropriate the copyright holder’s revenue sources.
- Lanham Act § 43(a) generally requires use in connection with goods or services; ideological advocacy materials not functioning as commercial promotion fall outside that scope.
- For defamation involving public concern, First Amendment constraints require proof of actionable false factual assertion and the requisite fault (including actual malice where applicable); protected opinion and value judgments are not enough.

## Conclusion

The court enjoined defendants under NYAARA for distributing distorted, altered reproductions attributed to the artist, while holding the pamphlet’s limited image use was fair use and rejecting Lanham Act and defamation theories because the speech was noncommercial advocacy and lacked the required defamatory falsehood and fault.


Wojnarowicz v. Am. Fam. Ass'n, 745 F. Supp. 130 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)