IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—11th Cir.: Annie Leibovitz copyright infringement lawsuit revived in case involving Star Wars movie photos, (May 6, 2026)

By Jonathan Anderson

The district court wrongly concluded that the suit, brought by Leibovitz’s representative, was barred for lack of standing.

A copyright infringement lawsuit brought by a representative of famed photographer Annie Leibovitz should not have been dismissed for lack of standing, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held. A three-judge panel of the appeals court vacated the district court’s order dismissing the suit and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appeals court held that Leibovitz’s retention of certain rights does not automatically foreclose the representative from asserting status as an exclusive licensee, namely because rights can be divisible and subdivisible under Section 106 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106 (Great Bowery Inc. v. Consequence Sound LLC, No. 24-12482 (11th Cir. May 5, 2026)).

Background. In 2014, Leibovitz executed a written “Artist Agreement” with Trunk Archive, a business operated by Great Bowery Inc., under which she granted Trunk Archive the “exclusive worldwide right to license, market, and promote” certain images she created, including images from multiple Star Wars movies. In 2022, Great Bowery filed suit, in its own name, against defendant Consequence Sound LLC (Consequence) and related entities, alleging copyright infringement of photos taken by Leibovitz.

After the deadline to join parties, Great Bowery moved to amend the complaint to add Leibovitz as a co-plaintiff. The district court denied the motion. The district court further granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that Great Bowery lacked standing because Great Bowery did not hold an exclusive right under a copyright. Great Bowery appealed. The question presented was whether Great Bowery has statutory standing under the Copyright Act to bring the action.

Analysis. The appeals court affirmed the district court’s denial of Great Bowery’s motion to amend the complaint. However, as to the standing question, the appeals court vacated the summary judgment order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Leave to amend. The appeals court affirmed the district court’s denial of Great Bowery’s motion to amend the complaint. Great Bowery argued that the district court was required to grant the motion no matter how untimely because 17 U.S.C. § 501(b) provides that “[t]he court... shall permit the intervention[ ] of any person having or claiming an interest in the copyright.” However, the appeals court said Leibovitz never moved to intervene, so 17 U.S.C. § 501(b) is inapplicable. Even if 17 U.S.C. § 501(b) gave an unconditional right to intervene, the appeals court said such a motion must still be timely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a).

Standing. The appeals court vacated the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Consequence and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appeals court found that the summary judgment order relied on a misunderstanding of the law. Consequence argued, and the district court had agreed, that because Leibovitz retained certain rights for herself as part of an Authorization Letter, she had not granted Great Bowery an exclusive license. However, the appeals court held that Leibovitz’s retention of rights does not automatically foreclose Great Bowery from asserting status as an exclusive licensee, namely because § 106 rights can be divisible and subdivisible.

In the alternative, Consequence argued that Great Bowery could not have received an exclusive license to the photographs because Condé Nast held a “nonexclusive right to publish and print each of the [photographs] as they appeared in [its] publications... at any time for the full term of the copyright.” However, the appeals court said Condé Nast’s nonexclusive license does not affect whether Great Bowery received an exclusive license.

The appeals court added that the district court should reconsider the import, if any, of the Authorization Letter. To the extent Great Bowery argues that the letter is an independent grant of exclusive rights, the appeals court said that the district court should analyze that argument in light of the appellate opinion. To the extent the letter illuminates the meaning of the Artist Agreement, the district court may need to first determine whether the letter is admissible as parol evidence, which will require determining which state’s law governs the Agreement.

The appeals court separately rejected Great Bowery’s argument that Consequence cannot challenge Great Bowery’s statutory standing because Leibovitz does not dispute that standing. The appeals court said that Consequence should be allowed to contest whether Great Bowery owned exclusive rights because of the Artist Agreement or the Authorization Letter signed by Leibovitz.

The Case is No. 24-12482.

Judge: Jordan, A.

Attorneys: Melissa Ann Higbee (Higbee & Associates) for Great Bowery Inc. Anderson J. Duff (Duff Law, PLLC) for Consequence Sound LLC and Consequence Media Group Inc.

Companies: Great Bowery Inc.; Consequence Sound LLC; Consequence Media Group Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Copyright AlabamaNews FloridaNews GeorgiaNews GCNNews