IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—D.N.J.: Tea website liable for user’s posting of copyrighted pumpkin pie image, (Jul 12, 2022)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The court found the photographer’s licensing agent had the right to sue for infringement under a license agreement with stock agency Getty Images.

Lines+Angles, Inc., the exclusive licensee of a photographer’s image of pumpkin pie, had the right to sue for copyright infringement, and a tea website’s posting of the image without permission constituted infringement, the federal district court in Camden, New Jersey, has held, granting in part a motion for partial summary judgment by Lines+Angles. The court found, however, that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the willfulness of the infringement (Lines+Angles, Inc. v. Adagio Teas, Inc., July 6, 2022, McNulty, K.).

Alleged infringement. Lines+Angles, Inc. (previously known as Stockfood America, Inc.), which acts as licensing agent for multiple photographers, obtains images from photographers with whom it enters into a standard agency agreement. The agency agreements provided, in part, that Stockfood was the exclusive agent worldwide with respect to licensing the photographers’ works and granted Stockfood the sole authority to pursue any legal action for copyright infringement, loss, unpaid fees, and damage. Adagio Teas, Inc., which operates a website that provides news and other content related to tea, displayed on its website a photograph of pumpkin pie for which Stockfood claimed copyright ownership.

After Stockfood notified Adagio of its possible infringement, Adagio removed the image and tried to pay licensing fees requested by Stockfood. Alleging that it did not give Adagio permission to use the two photos, Stockfood filed an infringement action against Adagio and moved for summary judgment on the issues of liability and willfulness. In response, Adagio argued that Stockfood had not created the image nor did it hold a valid copyright to it, as Germany-based Stockfood GmbH, and not Stockfood America, licensed the image to Getty Images and gave Getty the first right to sue with respect to unauthorized use. Adagio also argued that Stockfood’s agreements with its photographers did not grant Stockfood an ownership interest in, or exclusive license to, any photographs, including the image at issue. In a prior case dealing with a different image, the court held that Stockfood, as an exclusive licensee, had standing to sue for infringement even if the photographer retained copyright to the photos. Lines+Angles, Inc., purchased Stockfood during the pendency of the case, and the court granted a motion to substitute parties.

Motion for partial summary judgment. In January 2022, Lines+Angles filed a motion for partial summary judgment on liability. The court determined that the motion requires a decision on three issues: whether Stockfood owned the copyright in the image and had standing to sue; whether Adagio infringed Stockfood’s copyright; and whether the infringement was willful. The court found that Stockfood is an exclusive licensee with standing to sue and that Adagio infringed the copyright. However, the court found disputed issues of material fact requiring it to deny summary judgment as to willfulness.

Ownership, standing, and infringement. A copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduction, transfer, and public display of the copyrighted work, as well as the exclusive right to authorize such activities. Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner is an infringer of the copyright. Under the exclusive license agreement, Getty can sue for infringement, but in cases where it choses not to pursue legal action, the agreement clearly and unambiguously reserves to Stockfood the right to sue for infringement. Because Getty has not taken action against Adagio, the right reverted to Stockfood. The court found unpersuasive Adagio’s argument that Stockfood America was a non-exclusive licensee of the image because Getty entered into the license agreement with Stockfood GmbH, finding that the outcome would be the same. Consequently, the court found that because Adagio allowed the image to be posted to its website, Adagio infringed the copyright and granted summary judgment in favor of Stockfood.

Willfulness. As to the willfulness of the infringement, which potentially affects the amount of damages Stockfood stands to recover, Stockfood argued that evidence shows both reckless disregard for and wilful blindness to its rights. Adagio argued it was unaware a third party uploaded a copyrighted image to its website and that it would have immediately taken down the image if it had been informed by Stockfood that the image infringed its copyright. The court found that Lines+Angles points to indirect or collateral evidence from which, it claims, one could infer recklessness. The court found that there is enough of a disagreement as to raise a genuine dispute of material fact and denied summary judgement as to willfulness.

The Case is No. 2:20-cv-00831-KM-MAH.

Attorneys: Robert Terry Parker (Rath, Young and Pignatelli, PC) for Lines+Angles, Inc. Nicholas Pellegrino (Genova Burns LLC) for Adagio Teas, Inc.

Companies: Lines+Angles, Inc.; Adagio Teas, Inc.

Cases: Copyright NewJerseyNews