SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant Lawrence Marano appeals from an order dismissing his complaint entered on July 13, 2020, and an order denying his motion for reconsideration entered on August 14, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Valerie E. Caproni, J.). In 2019, Marano brought a copyright action against the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the “Met”). Marano alleged that the Met infringed his copyright by featuring a 1982 photograph he took of Eddie Van Halen playing his “Frankenstein” guitar (the “Photo”) in an exhibition of rock n’ roll instruments on the Mets website. After briefing on the fair use exception of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 107, the district court dismissed Maranos complaint for failure to state a claim, finding that Marano had “failed to show why the Mets use of [the Photo] is not protected by the fair use exception.” Marano v. Metro. Museum of Art, 472 F. Supp. 3d 76, 80 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), reconsideration denied, No. 19-CV-8606, 2020 WL 4735117 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2020). We assume the readers familiarity with the record.
Marano challenges the district courts determination that the Mets display of the Photo in its exhibition constitutes fair use. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
“Section 107 of the Copyright Act permits the unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted work if it is ‘for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching ․, scholarship, or research.’ ” Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605, 608 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 107). Courts properly consider four nonexclusive factors in “determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use”:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
17 U.S.C. § 107. These factors “must be viewed collectively, with their results ‘weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright,’ ” namely, “to promote progress in science and art.” TCA Television Corp. v. McCollum, 839 F.3d 168, 178–79 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 578, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994)).
“We review de novo a judgment of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), accepting all factual allegations in the ․ complaint and its incorporated exhibits as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in [the plaintiffs] favor.” Id. at 177. Fair use may be “so clearly established by a complaint as to support dismissal of a copyright infringement claim.” Id. at 178.
Accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, we conclude that the Mets display of the Photo in its website exhibition constituted fair use. We begin with the first factor—often framed as whether the use is “transformative”—which constitutes the “heart of the fair use inquiry.” Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244, 251 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152, 174 (2d Cir. 2001)). The Mets exhibition transformed the Photo by foregrounding the instrument rather than the performer. Whereas Maranos stated purpose in creating the Photo was to show “what Van Halen looks like in performance,” Appx at 29, the Met exhibition highlights the unique design of the Frankenstein guitar and its significance in the development of rock n’ roll instruments. Further, the Photo appears alongside other photographs showing the physical composition of the guitar, which are collectively accompanied by text discussing the guitars genesis, specifications, and impact on rock n’ roll music, not Van Halens biography or discography. This context “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the [Photo] with new expression, meaning, or message.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579, 114 S.Ct. 1164.
Marano contends that the Mets display of the Photo is not sufficiently transformative for fair use because the Met charges admission and provides entertainment. Yet the Met was founded “for the purpose of establishing and maintaining in [New York City] a Museum and library of art,” and it remains a nonprofit that “collects, studies, conserves, and presents significant works of art.” Appx 70. Although the Met charges a nominal fee to out-of-state visitors who visit the physical museum, the museums website—the subject of Maranos copyright claim—is both free and publicly available, serving to “extend [the Mets] cultural and academic reach ․ by welcoming without charge millions of virtual visitors every year.” Appx 44, 95. These purposes are not commercial; to the contrary, they align the Mets fair use of the Photo with “copyrights very purpose, ‘[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.’ ” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 578, 114 S.Ct. 1164 (quoting U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 8).
This transformative use of the Photo is consistent with the remaining factors under Section 107 tipping in favor of fair use. While the Photo is a “creative work of art,” that determination is of “limited usefulness” given that the Met is using the Photo “for a transformative purpose.” Bill Graham, 448 F.3d at 612. Similarly, the Mets “copying the entirety of [the Photo] [was] ․ necessary to make a fair use of the image” as one of many “historical artifacts” in the exhibition. Id. at 613. Likewise, a “transformative market” does not qualify as a “traditional, reasonable, or likely to be developed market,” id. at 614 (quoting Am. Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc., 60 F.3d 913, 930 (2d Cir. 1994)), and therefore Marano cannot “prevent others from entering fair use markets merely ‘by developing or licensing a market for ․ transformative uses of [his] own creative work,’ ” id. at 615 (quoting Castle Rock Ent., Inc. v. Carol Pub. Grp., Inc., 150 F.3d 132, 146 n.11 (2d Cir. 1998)). There is no indication in the record that the Mets use of the Photo on a web page describing the Frankenstein guitar could, in any way, impair any other market for commercial use of the Photo, or diminish its value. On balance, these factors indicate that the Mets display of the Photo qualifies for the fair use exception under Section 107.
Marano protests that this holding would extinguish copyright protections for photographers because museums displaying copyrighted photographs will always be able to assert a fair use defense by claiming a scholarly, transformative purpose behind the exhibition. But it has long been established that “the determination of fair use is an open-ended and context-sensitive inquiry.” Blanch, 467 F.3d at 251. Here, the district court appropriately conducted a fair-use analysis that was “deeply case-specific,” such that “[a] different use by a museum or art exhibition and combination of factors could have tipped the scales in the other direction.” Marano, 2020 WL 4735117, at *1. Such individualized analysis is precisely what Section 107 requires, and we discern no error in the district courts conclusion that the fair use exception applies to the Mets display of the Photo.
* * *
We have considered Maranos remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.