IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—N.D. Cal.: Photographer wins infringement ruling but not damages, (Feb 5, 2026)

By George Basharis, J.D.

Although infringement was established at summary judgment, evidence did not justify an award of damages or profit recovery, leaving the dispute largely confined to liability.

The federal court in San Francisco, California, has held that a financial services company infringed a photographer’s copyright by using an unlicensed image in a promotional blog post but concluded that the record could not support any recovery of actual damages, infringer profits, or enhanced statutory damages based on willfulness, leaving liability intact while largely foreclosing monetary relief. The ruling resolved cross motions for summary judgment in a dispute between professional photographer Joe Giron and Line Financial Health Network, which operates the Beem financial app and publishes content on its useline.com website. Giron alleged that Line Financial copied and displayed a photograph he took of Kurt Cobain without permission, and the court agreed that the use constituted direct infringement but found that Giron failed to marshal evidence tying the infringement to any concrete economic harm or profit (Giron v. Line Financial Health Network, No. 3:24-cv-03096-EMC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2026)).

Background. Giron shot and published the Cobain photograph in 1993, making creative choices regarding film, lens, aperture, and shutter speed. He later registered the image with the U.S. Copyright Office in April 2020. Line Financial runs a blog as part of its marketing efforts for tax and financial products. According to Giron, the company relied on independent contractors to prepare blog posts and instructed them to use images believed to be free to use, although it could not locate written documentation of that policy.

In February 2023, Line Financial published a blog post on useline.com commemorating Cobain’s birthday and encouraging readers to file their taxes using the company’s services. The post featured Giron’s photograph, which had been cropped and overlaid with text and graphics. One of Line Financial’s contractors had downloaded the image from WallpaperCave, a website that offers free wallpaper downloads. The contractor believed the image was free to use based on its availability on that site.

Giron discovered the post in March 2023 and had not licensed or authorized the use. After receiving notice of the potential infringement, Line Financial removed the photograph from its website. Giron filed suit in May 2024, asserting direct copyright infringement and seeking damages.

Liability established. On liability, the court found no genuine dispute of material fact. Giron produced his copyright registration and a declaration describing his authorship and creative process. The registration created a rebuttable presumption of ownership and validity, which Line Financial did not contest with contrary evidence.

The company’s own verified discovery responses established the remaining elements of infringement. Line Financial admitted that its contractor downloaded the photograph, that the company cropped and modified it, and that it posted and displayed the image on its website without a license. Those acts infringed Giron’s exclusive rights of reproduction and display under the Copyright Act.

Line Financial argued that Giron’s evidence of how the photograph appeared on the website was inadmissible. The court rejected the argument, concluding that the admissions in discovery independently established infringement and that a defendant cannot defeat summary judgment by referencing undeveloped affirmative defenses. Without disputed facts on ownership or copying, the court granted Giron summary judgment on prima facie copyright liability.

Actual damages. The ruling turned in Line Financial’s favor on damages. To recover actual damages under the Copyright Act, the court explained, a plaintiff must show a causal link between the infringement and a measurable loss, such as diminished licensing value or a reasonable hypothetical license fee grounded in objective market evidence.

Giron did not do so, according to the court. The only damages-related evidence he offered was a generalized statement that unauthorized use of his photographs diminishes their licensing value by undermining exclusivity. The court characterized that assertion as speculative, particularly where the alleged infringement involved a single blog post advertising tax services, with no apparent connection to the photograph’s subject matter or any showing of notoriety or widespread dissemination.

The court also noted that it had earlier directed the parties to exchange information on licensing and related issues. Line Financial produced limited financial records, while Giron produced no licensing comparables or other evidence quantifying loss. In opposing Line Financial’s motion, Giron did not point to any concrete proof of actual damages or attempt to explain how the use impaired an identifiable licensing opportunity.

Without evidence establishing a fair market value for a license or any lost profits attributable to the infringement, the court concluded that an award of actual damages would be unduly speculative. Therefore, summary judgment was granted to Line Financial on that issue.

Infringer profits. Giron also sought recovery of Line Financial’s profits attributable to the infringement. Because the company did not sell the photograph or otherwise directly monetize it, any recovery would depend on showing indirect profits. That requires non-speculative evidence of a causal relationship between the infringement and the defendant’s revenue.

The court found no support for such a connection. Line Financial denied receiving any financial benefit from operating the useline.com blog and asserted that the post containing the photograph generated no revenue, sales, or profits. It also represented that the post received zero clicks, aside from the view that led Giron to discover it.

Line Financial produced QuickBooks records indicating that the tax service promoted in the blog post operated at a loss, with expenses exceeding revenue. Giron offered no evidence contradicting those figures or otherwise tying the photograph’s presence to increased traffic, conversions, or revenue. Consequently, the court found no basis for a reasonable jury to infer indirect profits attributable to the infringement and granted summary judgment for Line Financial.

Willfulness rejected. The court also rejected Giron’s claim that the infringement was willful, a finding that would be relevant only if he elected statutory damages and sought enhancement. Willfulness requires proof that a defendant acted with actual knowledge of infringement or with reckless disregard or willful blindness to the copyright holder’s rights.

In this case, the undisputed evidence showed that the contractor obtained the image from a website presenting itself as a source of free wallpaper downloads, without visible copyright management information. Line Financial had a policy, although undocumented, instructing contractors to use images believed to be free to use. When notified of the infringement claim, the company promptly removed the photograph.

Giron argued that Line Financial failed to show a reasonable good-faith belief in the legality of its conduct. The court disagreed, distinguishing cases where defendants continued infringing after receiving notice. Line Financial ceased use upon notice, and Giron offered no additional evidence suggesting recklessness or willful blindness beyond the act of infringement itself. The court concluded that willfulness could be resolved on summary judgment given the undisputed facts and ruled in Line Financial’s favor.

The Case is No. 3:24-cv-03096-EMC.

Judge: Chen, E.

Attorneys: Craig B. Sanders (Sanders Law Group) for Joe Giron. Morgan E. Pietz (Merchant & Gould LLP) for Line Financial Health Network.

Companies: Line Financial Health Network

Cases: Copyright CaliforniaNews