Oliver Gill Blogpost 3: Roberts v. Richard Beavers Gallery et al

Deborah Roberts, Serenade (2017) (artwork), and Lynthia Edwards, Calico II (2020) (artwork), introduced as evidence in Roberts v. Richard Beavers Gallery, 1:2022cv04516 (E.D.N.Y. August 1, 2022).

The Center for Art Law posted “Case Review: Roberts v. Richard Beavers Gallery et al (2022) – on Artistic Tradition and Copyright Infringement” on May 29, 2023. Artist Deborah Roberts accused Lynthia Edwards and Richard Beavers Gallery “for ‘willful copyright infringement’” (Domek) following the gallery’s denial to display Roberts’ work while showcasing Edwards’ collages. More specifically, Roberts accused Edwards of infringing on her “‘trade dress’—the distinctive look and feel of a product” (Voon). Roberts and Edwards share the same subject matter and medium of choice, “[exploring] Black identity through collage” (Domek). Their similarities extend to the physical aspect of their work; a fragmented assembly of photographed “facial features, hair, hands and feet” (Voon) interspersed with “colorful and patterned fabric swatches” (Voon). Roberts argues these qualities are unique to her work. The complaint also alleges that Edwards used the “same photographic source material as she did in her collages” (Voon), namely “the famous photograph of Rosa Parks, taken after she was arrested in 1955, as well as the fists of Muhammed Ali as photographed by Gordon Parks” (Voon).    

Examples of works by Lynthia Edwards (left) and Deborah Roberts (right)

The court records themself demonstrate the extent to which Roberts is trying to claim Edwards copied her work. The first complaint, filed on August 1, 2002, included 9 exhibits. An amended complaint was filed on September 26, 2022, and nudged the number of exhibits up to 10. The second amended complaint, filed on December 21, 2022, put forth 25 exhibits (Roberts v. Richard Beavers Gallery et al, EDNY, 1:22-cv-04516 (2022)). On September 29, 2023, Edwards’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was partially granted. More specifically, “Exhibits 4, 8-9, 11, 13 and 15” (Roberts v. Richard Beavers Gallery et al) were dismissed on the basis of hypothetical infringement. Roberts’ “Trade Dress Infringement claim [was] dismissed in its entirety” (Roberts v. Richard Beavers Gallery et al). As it stands, the Defendants are set to attend a conference call on December 6, 2023, to discuss their “motion for extension of time” (Roberts v. Richard Beavers Gallery et al) to file their response to the second amended complaint.     

The biggest complication when it comes to copyright infringement and art is that “copyright law protects the expression of ideas in tangible form and not the ideas themselves” (Domek). In this particular instance, “Roberts’s work is protected under copyright law” (Domek), but because Edwards did not entirely replicate Roberts’ work she did not technically commit copyright infringement. By extension, Roberts claiming that “Edwards more generally copied her work…makes the argument that Roberts puts forward challenging because copyright does not protect style” (Domek). Although Roberts’ and Edwards’ pieces are similar in terms of composition and subject matter, the execution and theme of each respective piece are notably different. As a whole, “Roberts more generally redefines Black beauty through collage” (Domek) while “Edwards sees her younger self in her collages and is more nostalgic” (Domek). Their surface-level similarities have in many ways overshadowed their distinct qualities and led to a battle claiming a culturally held tradition as one’s own instead of embracing the communal aspects of art.  

I do find it fascinating how one’s artistic style can weave so intensely into their sense of personal identity. Roberts holds her methods close to her heart, using her artwork to navigate her own experiences as a black artist and explore black identity. Seeing these qualities implemented elsewhere likely feels like aspects of her unique life story are being ripped away from her and placed in an entirely new context. Given that Edwards already navigates a similar realm, Roberts likely felt even more defensive and sure that she was purposefully trying to copy not only her style but what her style stands for. Unfortunately for Roberts copyright is incapable of navigating such an intricate relationship to one’s own style. Simply put it’s an entirely subjective argument, both for Roberts to claim Edwards copied her work and for Edwards to argue that many other artists share overlapping qualities in their work as well.

Honestly speaking I am torn on picking either side with certainty. Would seeing all 25 exhibits sway my vote on the matter? Does a court with only the necessary knowledge of what both Roberts and Edwards showcase through their work have the right to decide who owns what? Subjectively speaking it’s complicated and messy. Objectively speaking style cannot be copyrighted. As things currently stand, the certainty of copyright law will likely never stop tangling with the subjective claims of plagiarism in art.    

Bibliography

Domek, Madelyn. “Case Review: Roberts v. Richard Beavers Gallery et al (2022) – on Artistic Tradition and Copyright Infringement.” Center for Art Law, July 6, 2023. https://itsartlaw.org/2023/05/29/case-review-roberts-v-richard-beavers-gallery-et-al-2022-on-artistic-tradition-and-copyright-infringement/#post-58597-footnote-0. 

Voon, Claire. “Defendants Seek Dismissal of Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Brought by Collage Artist Deborah Roberts.” The Art Newspaper, February 2, 2023. https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/02/02/lynthia-edwards-richard-beavers-deborah-roberts-copyright-infringement-case-motion-dismiss.