The basketball magazine SLAM hired Jonathan Mannion to photograph basketball player Kevin Garnett. One of the photographs is a three-quarter length portrait of Garnett taken from a low angle against a backdrop of clouds and blue sky. Garnett wears large amounts of jewelry, his head is cocked to one side, and his hands rest on his abdomen with his thumbs in the waistband of his pants. 

Coors Brewing Co. (“Coors”) hired Carol H. Williams Advertising (“CHWA,” together with Coors, the “Coors defendants”) to develop a new campaign for its light beer. CHWA obtained permission to use Mannion’s photograph in a design proposal. The resulting proposal features a can of beer and the words “ICED OUT” superimposed onto a cropped, black-and-white manipulation of Mannion’s photograph. CHWA then solicited bids from various photographers, including Mannion, and included the design proposal. Mannion applied but did not win the bid. Mannion later observed billboards displaying the completed advertisement, which mimics the design proposal—but instead of using Garnett, a different model adopts a similar pose, clothing, and jewelry. 

Mannion sued for copyright infringement. Proving copyright infringement first requires demonstrating that a defendant actually copied the plaintiff’s work. “Actual copying” can be shown by direct evidence or through proof of access. Because the Coors defendants undisputedly had access to Mannion’s photograph, the district court ruled that the remaining issue was whether substantial similarity of original expression existed between the two images, a question of fact for the jury. 

On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court held that Mannion’s photograph was original. The district court specifically cited Mannion’s “relatively unusual angle and distinctive lighting” as indicative of originality "in the rendition". Mannion also demonstrated originality in the “creation of the subject” by posing “man against sky” and directing Garnett to wear plain clothing, a large amount of jewelry, and and "to look `chilled out.'" The district court also noted various aspects of the photograph that were not original and thus not protectible. For example, Mannion could not prevent others from photographing cloudy skies in the background, or Garnett’s face, torso, and hands.” Nevertheless, the district court found that “Mannion indisputably orchestrated the scene . . . and chose to capture it,” and that the photograph’s originality is not limited to its’ particular elements but rather the image as a whole. 

In reaching this conclusion, the district court dismissed the Coors’ defendants’ contention that the photograph embodied a general idea that could not be copyrighted, noting “[i]t is possible to imagine any number of depictions of a black man wearing a white t-shirt and ‘bling bling’ that look nothing like either of the photographs at issue here” and that the similarities include “angle, pose, background, composition, and lighting.” 

When comparing the two photographs, the district court noted that the Coors defendants “appear to have recreated much of the subject that Mannion had created and then, through imitation of angle and lighting, rendered it in a similar way” because the photographs included similar compositions, angles, lighting, cloudy sky backgrounds, clothing, and jewelry, all of which are protected elements and comprise Mannion’s “originality in the rendition and the creation of the subject.” The district court also considered the differences in the photographs: color compared to black and white, most of Kevin Garnett’s body compared to an unidentified man’s torso, differences in composition (the photographs are mirror images of one another), unidentical jewelry, and tightness of the white t-shirt fit. The district court determined that the Coors Light beer can and “Iced Out” in the Coors’ defendants ad are not part of the substantial similarity analysis because “no plagiarist can excuse the wrong by showing how much of his work he did not pirate.”

In conclusion, the district court noted a jury could find either way in the substantial similarity analysis and held that infringement was not “ruled out—or in—as a matter of law,” as in Kisch v. Ammirati which presented “facts as close to this case as can be imagined.” Thus, the district court found that substantial similarity could not be decided on motions for summary judgment and must be decided by a jury. 

The case later proceeded to trial and the jury found in favor of Mannion. The Coors defendants were jointly and severally liable for $30,000 and CHWA was individually liable for $20,000. Mannion then appealed on the damages issue but later withdrew his appeal.

‍

‍