Eleventh Circuit Vacates Summary Judgment in Leibovitz Photo Copyright Case, Reaffirms Exclusive Licensee Standing

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on May 5, 2026, vacated a Southern District of Florida summary judgment in Great Bowery Inc. v. Consequence Sound LLC, reviving a copyright infringement suit over photographs that Annie Leibovitz had taken on the set of a new “Star Wars” film. The Eleventh Circuit held that the rights Leibovitz retained in her artist agreement with Great Bowery did not strip Great Bowery of its standing as the exclusive licensee of the photographs at issue, and described the lower court’s understanding of copyright law as “not quite right.”

Background—”Star Wars” Set Photographs

The photographs at issue were taken by Leibovitz on the set of a new “Star Wars” film and were produced for publication in Vanity Fair magazine. Great Bowery, Leibovitz’s photo agency and licensing management company, holds an artist agreement with Leibovitz that designates it as the exclusive licensee for the photographs, with authority to license them to third parties and to sue for infringement.

Consequence Sound LLC, a music media and content company, posted and used the photographs online, prompting Great Bowery to file a copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of Florida.

District Court—Standing Denied Because Leibovitz “Retained” Some Rights

The district court granted summary judgment to Consequence Sound. Its core reasoning was that Leibovitz had retained certain rights in her artist agreement with Great Bowery, which—in the lower court’s view—prevented Great Bowery from qualifying as the “exclusive licensee” of the photographs and therefore deprived it of standing to sue.

Under U.S. copyright law, standing to sue for infringement runs to the copyright owner or to “the exclusive licensee of any particular exclusive right” (17 U.S.C. § 501(b)). Whether a party qualifies turns on the language of the licensing contract and whether the plaintiff has substantively succeeded to an exclusive right. The district court held that Leibovitz’s retention of any rights vitiated Great Bowery’s exclusivity.

Eleventh Circuit—”Not Quite Right” on Copyright Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case to the Southern District of Florida. The appellate court held that any rights Leibovitz retained did not preclude Great Bowery from qualifying as the exclusive licensee of the photographs at issue.

The opinion described the district court’s “understanding of copyright law” as “not quite right.” Status as an exclusive licensee does not require that the copyright owner part with every conceivable right; rather, an exclusive license over a defined set of rights remains exclusive even where the owner has carved out and retained specific other uses or purposes outside that license.

Put differently, the exclusivity inquiry asks whether the particular rights conferred by the license were granted exclusively to that licensee, not whether the owner has remaining rights in unrelated uses.

Remand and Issues to Come

On remand, the Southern District of Florida will now consider the merits of whether Consequence Sound’s posting of the photographs infringed Great Bowery’s exclusive license.

The merits phase is expected to address: (i) the precise scope of the rights conferred on Great Bowery in its artist agreement with Leibovitz; (ii) whether Consequence Sound’s conduct fell within that scope and amounted to infringement; (iii) any fair use defenses asserted; and (iv) damages and remedies.

Practical Implications

The decision provides important guidance on standing for licensees suing for copyright infringement under contractual arrangements common in the photography agency model. As digital reuse of editorial photography expands, suits brought by licensing agents on behalf of artists are increasingly common, and the precise drafting and interpretation of license scope can determine whether a suit reaches the merits.

The lower court’s reasoning—that any retained rights by the artist defeat exclusivity—would have undermined the legal foundation of the photography agency model itself. Splitting uses between an artist and an agent across different contractual silos is standard practice. The Eleventh Circuit’s holding restores alignment between that commercial reality and copyright standing doctrine.

Leibovitz’s work has been featured for decades in Vanity Fair, Vogue, and other major publications, and the licensing infrastructure that surrounds her portraits is widely viewed as a model for the industry. The remand outcome could influence licensing-management strategy across the photography sector. Note that this case is distinct from the well-known Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. decisions of 1996 and 1998, which involved fair use and parody and presented unrelated issues.