IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—D.S.D.: Is one out of three enough for attorney fees? Court finds that it is, (Jun 26, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

Defendants prevailed on DMCA claim, even if other claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Two producers who successfully defended a claim that they violated the DMCA were entitled to an award of over $20,000 in attorney fees even though two other claims against them were dismissed only without prejudice, the District Court for North Dakota has held. The court, in granting the award, found that the victory on the DMCA claim was all that the producers needed to show that they received “a judicially sanctioned ruling on the merits that altered their legal relationship” with the plaintiff (Wallman v. Wieneke, No. 4:25-cv-04036-KES (D.S.D. Jun. 24, 2026)).

The lawsuit was brought by Cade Wallman, a camera operator and filmmaker who resides in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. In 2022, Wallman alleged that he agreed to serve as a camera operator for a series that Dominic Wieneke and Zeke Richter were putting together. The series, entitled “Last Stop: The Series,” is a comedy series depicting the daily life of employees of the Last Stop CD Shop, a Sioux Falls retailer. (The decidedly home-grown series appears to have garnered only a modest number of views on the YouTube page for Wieneke’s production company Warwolf Productions).

Wallman eventually became dissatisfied with the direction of the series and left the production with a directive to the producers that they not use any of the footage that he shot. Early in February 2025, however, he became aware that the producers had used his footage anyway in publicly released versions of the series. Wallman therefore brought this lawsuit alleging copyright infringement, violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and violation of state law privacy rights.

The court dismissed all three claims—initially with prejudice. As to the copyright claim, as IP Law Daily explained in its prior coverage of the case, the court found that the camera operator had never registered the work and therefore could not bring a lawsuit over it. (The court was unsympathetic to the camera operator’s dilemma that he could not register the works because the producers allegedly had possession of it.) As to the DMCA claim, the footage did not contain a watermark or other identifying information on it—meaning that he did not have copyright management information to protect. Finally, the court noted, with the federal claims out of the case there was no reason to continue to exercise jurisdiction under the state law claim.

After the camera operator moved for reconsideration, the court amended its decision and dismissed the copyright and state law claims without prejudice. That left only the DMCA claim dismissed with prejudice.

The producers moved for an award of attorney fees, leading to this opinion.

Prevailing party. The court found that the producers were prevailing parties under the Copyright Act, entitling them to seek an award of fees. To be sure, the court noted, the producers were still (at least in theory) “at risk” of further legal action on the copyright claim and potentially the state law claim. But under Eighth Circuit authority, the court found, an award of attorney fees was appropriate “where a plaintiff only succeeded on one of her three claims at trial.” That was the situation here, the court found, in light of the fact that the court dismissed the DMCA claim with prejudice. Notably, although the producers argued that they were the prevailing parties “in the conventional sense because they prevailed for the reasons they advanced,” the court observed, “they need not establish that level of success.” Rather, the court emphasized, “they need only show that they received a judicially sanctioned ruling on the merits that altered their legal relationship with Wallman.” Because they did that with the DMCA claim, the court found, that requirement was satisfied.

Entitlement to fees. The court also found that the producers were entitled to collect attorney fees in this case. In considering an award of fees to the prevailing party, the court noted, courts consider factors such as “whether the lawsuit was frivolous or unreasonable, the losing litigant’s motivations, the need in a particular case to compensate or deter, and the purposes of the Copyright Act.” To be sure, the court noted, the second factor—the camera operator’s motive—was genuinely an open question. But the remaining factors pointed toward an award, the court determined. It was unreasonable for the camera operator to bring the claim in the first place, the court found, because he had not complied with the threshold registration requirement. The producers incurred “significant expenses,” the court noted, defending claims that “could not succeed.” Finally, the court concluded, “an award of attorney’s fees would further the purposes of the Copyright Act by encouraging litigants to confirm that they possess enforceable rights under the Copyright Act before initiating infringement litigation.”

Amount of fees. Having determined the producers’ entitlement to fees, the court had little trouble finding on the basis of the amount of hours worked and the billable rate, that just over $22,000 was an appropriate award.

The Case is No. 4:25-cv-04036-KES.

Judge: Schreier, K.

Attorneys: William Hale (Goosmann Law Firm) for Cade Wallman. Drew Driesen (Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith PC) for Dominic Wieneke d/b/a Warwolf Productions.

Companies: Dominic Wieneke d/b/a Warwolf Productions

Cases: Copyright SouthDakotaNews