Donald Trump crashes a wedding at his Bedminster Golf Club. Photo modified by the author and used without permission under 17 USC § 107. In a decision that could have dangerous reverberations for press freedom, a federal district judge ruled last week that Esquire violated a copyright held by a Deutsche Bank vice president when it published his photo of Donald Trump crashing a stranger’s wedding at his New Jersey club. The photo, snapped on an iPhone and posted to Instagram by another guest, was used to illustrate an article about the president’s unplanned appearances at events at his private venue. Esquire’s parent company Hearst had argued that its inclusion of the photo was a fair use—an argument Judge Gregory Woods rejected in a summary judgment order in Otto v. Hearst last Monday. Threats to press freedom around the world are at an all-time high. Sign up to stay up to date and take action to protect journalists and whistleblowers everywhere. Thanks for signing up for our newsletter. You are not yet subscribed! Please check your email for a message asking you to confirm your subscription. That decision could effectively give private individuals—particularly individuals with private access to newsworthy people—inappropriate power to shape or limit the visual coverage of public officials, by allowing them to pick and choose which outlets may run those photos, and under what terms. Trump’s appearances at his own business locations, from which he and his family still profit, are widely described as evidence of corruption. Images of the president and other public officials at Trump properties have been the basis of dozens of news stories. The photographs themselves are newsworthy and (especially in a time of diminished trust in the media) cannot be substituted by verbal descriptions. The plaintiff in this case, Jonathan Otto, appears to be willing to license the picture to anybody ready to pay. Indeed, as he texted another wedding guest to whom he had sent the image: “Hey, TMZ & others using my photo above without credit/compensation. You send to anyone? I want my cut.” But it’s important to note that, if the law deems a license for this sort of photo is necessary, that license would be issued entirely at the discretion of the copyright holder. Otto could offer his photo only to outlets known to provide favorable coverage of the president, say, or charge a rate prohibitive to smaller operations. It is a bad policy that gives any individual—especially an executive at a bank with extensive financial ties to the president—the power to control whether and how journalists can present newsworthy images to the public. Instead, judges should interpret the fair use doctrine to give the widest possible berth to journalists. This is consistent with the law. Fair use is determined on a case-by-case basis, but the legal test that judges apply explicitly names “news reporting” as one of the purposes for which it is intended. There are a few technical possibilities for how attorneys and judges can make that argument, but—especially given the potentially ruinous damages associated with copyright violations—the effect must be a firm understanding of broad fair use rights. Judge Woods nods to such a possibility in a section acknowledging the “fact-driven nature” of fair use analysis, saying: It is not unreasonable to think that the use could be considered fair inanother matter involving a news publisher’s incorporation of a personalphotograph. Though the Court did not find fair use in this particularinstance, it does not preclude a finding of fair use in in othermatters, depending on the balance of the fair use factors. Therefore,the Court emphasizes that a finding of fair use in a matter involvingpersonal photographs used by the media might be readily sustainable onfacts other than those presented here. The circumstances of this photo and its publication, though, precisely fit a fact pattern that needs to be allowed. Some of the facts that Judge Woods ruled weighed against a finding of fair use: Fair use is a balancing test, and the ideal of a free press and an informed public outweigh the policy goal of bestowing outsized media influence or a licensing paydays on people who attend weddings at Trump properties. The situation is especially urgent because of a second New York court ruling issued earlier this year, Goldman v. Breitbart, which cast uncertainty on another time-tested technique for reporting on material sourced from social media sites. In that case, Judge Katherine Forrest broke with a long-standing rule called the "server test," which says that operators of websites aren’t liable for material that is simply embedded from other sites around the web.