CATEGORIES

Rock Hall Fair Use Win Hits a High Note—and Sends a Message to Creators

12.29.25

In a decision that will reverberate through copyright and museum communities alike, the Northern District of Ohio has ruled that the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame’s use of two iconic Van Halen photographs was fair use, handing the museum a clean win on a Rule 12(c) motion. Zlozower v. Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-1817 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 10, 2025). The case pitted renowned rock photographer Neil Zlozower—whose images of Eddie Van Halen are as instantly recognizable as the guitarist’s striped “Frankenstrat”—against the Rock Hall’s blockbuster “Play It Loud” exhibit. The museum had used cropped and enlarged portions of Zlozower’s photos to contextualize Eddie’s guitars, amplifiers, and gear. Zlozower claimed unlicensed commercial use; the Hall argued transformative, educational fair use.

And in true rock-and-roll fashion, the court turned the volume up to 11 on the museum’s defense.

Why the Court Found Fair Use

Judge Boyko held that the Hall’s display was “transformative”—not because the museum altered the image’s aesthetics, but because it repurposed the photo to teach visitors about the evolution of Eddie Van Halen’s gear. The museum wasn’t trying to sell posters or depict the band’s party-image (Zlozower’s original expressive purpose). Instead, it used the images “as historical artifacts” to contextualize the exhibit’s centerpiece: the Frankenstrat and the equipment that shaped Van Halen’s sound. This analysis closely mirrors the Second Circuit’s approach in Bill Graham Archives, which blessed the use of exact replicas of Grateful Dead posters in a timeline-style coffee table book. It also echoed Marano v. Metropolitan Museum of Art, another case involving a Van Halen image used in a museum context.

Other fair-use factors fell predictably:

  • Nature of the work: Highly creative—but published—so only slightly favored the photographer.
  • Amount used: The museum showed substantial, even entire portions of the photos, but the court emphasized that copying the whole work can be permissible when necessary for a transformative purpose.
  • Market harm: No evidence the Hall’s display competed with Zlozower’s licensing market. Museums are part of his licensing universe, but he didn’t allege lost licenses of these specific images.

Why This Case Matters

This ruling may embolden museums—and potentially other nonprofits—to rely more confidently on fair use when including copyrighted materials in educational exhibits. Creators, meanwhile, may feel the tremors. The decision leans heavily into contextual educational value, even when the use involves exact, unaltered images. For photographers whose licensing markets include museums, this could signal that courts won’t automatically equate “museum usage” with “market harm.” Expect future plaintiffs to take care in pleading concrete facts about licensing history, lost deals, and substitutive market effects—boilerplate allegations didn’t cut it here.

One Fun Eddie Van Halen Fact (Because Why Not?)

While his guitar may have been called Frankenstein, Eddie Van Halen was equal parts Dr. Frankenstein and mad scientist. He famously built the guitar by hand from mismatched parts—including a factory-second body he reportedly bought for $50—then slathered it with red, white, and black stripes using masking tape and a can of Schwinn bicycle paint. He even stuffed the guitar’s electronics cavity with paraffin wax to kill microphonic feedback. (In other words, the wax inside your candle is also the secret sauce behind “Eruption.”) So when the Rock Hall argued that the instrument—not the band—was the focus of its display, the court likely understood: the Frankenstrat isn’t just a guitar. It’s cultural history.

Takeaway for IP Owners and Institutional Users

For creators:

  • Document your licensing markets—specifically and concretely.
  • Plead market harm with facts, not conclusions.
  • Expect courts to scrutinize transformative educational uses closely.

For museums and nonprofits:

  • Contextual, educational exhibit use—particularly tied to physical artifacts—has strong fair-use footing.
  • A transformative purpose can outweigh even substantial copying.
  • Commercial elements (like admission fees) are not necessarily dispositive.

And for all of us who practice in the IP space: when a court opinion features Eddie Van Halen, the Frankenstrat, and a legal analysis that could reshape museum practices nationwide, that’s a decision worth turning up loud.

 

Seth Ogden Ph.D. | Shareholder