IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—D. Nev.: A heli-skiing company granted summary judgment and damages for copyright infringement and false take-down notices, (Jun 9, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

District Court grants summary judgment and damages to a heli-skiing company, finding that an individual caused a false copyright attribution to SledNV to be published with an infringing copy of the Seitz Canyon photo.

A heli-skiing company was entitled to summary judgment against an individual on its copyright infringement claim and Section 1202 claim for unauthorized use of a photograph that a director of the heli-skiing company had registered and licensed to the company, the U.S. District Court in Las Vegas has held. The individual used the copyrighted photo as the background of SledNV’s website and putting SledNV’s copyright notice on it. The court ordered the individual to pay the heli-skiing company damages and dismissed the individual’s amended counterclaim and third-party complaint with prejudice (Ruby Mountain Heli-Ski Guides, Inc. v. Sled NV, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-00211-MMD-CSD (D. Nev. Jun. 5, 2025)).

Background. Ruby Mountain Heli-Ski Guides, Inc. (Ruby) operates a helicopter ski guiding service in the Ruby Mountains of Nevada. Jason Murchison was Ruby’s guest from February 22 to 24, 2021. During the trip, Murchison was part of a group that descended Seitz Canyon, led by Michael Royer, a director of Ruby. During the group’s descent of Seitz Canyon, Royer used his iPhone to take a photograph of the first skier down Seitz Canyon, Michael Epsteyn (the Seitz Canyon photo). Royer registered a copyright in the Seitz Canyon photo and assigned it to Ruby.

After attending the tour with Ruby, Murchison partnered with Kyle Wieben, owner of Sled NV, Inc. (SledNV) to operate a ski guiding service for SledNV. As part of SledNV’s plans to offer ski guiding services, Murchison worked with Stephanie Hidalgo (Hidalgo) to create the website for SledNV. Murchison directed Hidalgo to post the Seitz Canyon photo on the new website she was creating for SledNV (New SledNV Website). But Ruby never authorized the use of the Seitz Canyon photo on the New SledNV Website. Royer asked Murchison to take the Seitz Canyon photo down from the New SledNV Website in April 2023, but Murchison refused. Ruby sued Sled NV, Inc., Wieben, and Murchison for copyright infringement and placing false copyright management information in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1202. Because Wieben and Sled NV failed to appear in the action, the clerk entered default against them, which remains pending.

Murchison filed a counterclaim against Ruby and a third-party complaint against Royer for breach of contract and declaratory judgment contending that he bought some photos from Royer for $100, so Ruby should not have sued him. The district court granted motions to dismiss the counterclaim and third party, but Murchison filed amended versions of his counterclaim against Ruby and a third-party complaint against Royer. Ruby moved for summary judgment against Murchison for copyright infringement and posting copies of the Seitz Canyon photo with copyright notices falsely stating SledNV has a copyright in it. Ruby also sought damages and attorney fees.

Motion to dismiss. In the amended versions of his counterclaim and third-party complaint, Murchison broadened out the original allegations that he entered into a verbal agreement with Royer in exchange for $100 for all the photos Royer took on the ski tour Murchison attended. Ruby and Royer moved to dismiss the amended counterclaim and third-party complaint because it violated the Copyright statute of frauds codified in 17 U.S.C. § 204. They also argued for dismissal with prejudice. Murchison did not timely respond to this motion so the district court granted it as unopposed. Alternatively, the district court granted the motion because it agreed that Murchison’s claims were based on an invalid copyright interest because the purported interest was conveyed by mere oral agreement. The district court also agreed that Murchison was already permitted to amend his counterclaim and third-party complaint. But again, his putative claims are based on an oral agreement creating a purported copyright interest. Therefore, the district court found that an amendment would be futile and dismissed Murchison’s amended counterclaim and third-party complaint with prejudice.

Copyright infringement. The district court noted that to establish copyright infringement, the plaintiff must show ownership of a valid copyright and copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. Ruby filed documents establishing that it owned a registered copyright in the Seitz Canyon photo with its complaint. Ruby supplemented these documents with a declaration from Royer, who took the Seitz Canyon photo on his iPhone. In the declaration, Royer explained that he took the Seitz Canyon photo on February 21, 2021, while working for Ruby and that he assigned his rights in the photo to Ruby after registering a copyright on it. The district court found this evidence sufficient to meet Ruby’s burden that it owned a registered copyright in the Seitz Canyon photo.

To prove to the other prong of the copyright infringement analysis, copying of constituent elements of the work that are original, Ruby pointed to: Murchison’s nonresponse to pertinent Requests for Admissions (RFAs), testimony of Murchison’s webmaster Hidalgo to the effect that Murchison sent her the Seitz Canyon photo and told her to have it posted on the SledNV website, and a declaration from Wieben, who stated under penalty of perjury that Murchison copied the Seitz Canyon photo.

Murchison raised the affirmative defenses of implied license, fair use, innocent infringement, and laches. However, the district court found that Murchison copied the Seitz Canyon photo and it was undisputed that Murchison did not have permission to post the photo on the SledNV website. The district court also rejected Murchison’s unsupported assertion that he “cropped and modified the image” because it was contradicted by Ruby’s expert’s report detailing how the image posted 24 times on the SledNV website was an exact copy of the Seitz Canyon photo. Lastly, as Ruby filed less than three years after Murchison caused copies of the picture to be posted to the SledNV website, this case was not barred by laches. Accordingly, Ruby was entitled to summary judgment against Murchison on its copyright infringement claim.

Section 1202. The district court found that statements in Wieben’s declaration proved that Murchison added the false copyright notices to the SledNV webpage with the Seitz Canyon photo on it, even though Murchison knew he did not own the Seitz Canyon Photograph and knew that his activities in posting the Seitz Canyon Photograph constituted unlawful copyright infringement. Murchison offered nothing more to contradict this evidence than an unsupported denial. Accordingly, Ruby was entitled to summary judgment on its Section 1202 claim.

Damages and attorney fees. The district court found that Murchison is liable for one violation of Section 1202, for which he is liable for the maximum amount of $25,000. Ruby is also entitled to $22,343.94 in damages for Murchison’s copyright infringement. Therefore, Ruby is entitled to $47,343.94 in damages against Murchison. However, Ruby was not entitled to an award of attorney fees because its request did not comply with LR 54-14.

The Case is No. 3:24-cv-00211-MMD-CSD.

Judge: Du, M.

Attorneys: Brian N. Platt (Workman Nydegger) for Ruby Mountain Heli-Ski Guides, Inc.

Companies: Ruby Mountain Heli-Ski Guides, Inc.; Sled NV, Inc.

Cases: Copyright TechnologyInternet NevadaNews GCNNews