IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—S.D. Ind.: Judgment on pleadings denied in home photography dispute, (Mar 19, 2026)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Claims for copyright infringement were properly pleaded because the plaintiff photographer plausibly alleged her ownership, and the defendant’s unauthorized use, of photographs she had taken of homes designed by the defendant.

An architectural firm was not entitled to judgment on the pleadings against copyright claims brought by a photographer whose works the firm used in advertising, the U.S. District Court in Indianapolis has held. It was plausibly alleged that the photographs in question belonged to the photographer, not the architects or homeowners, and that they were used by the architectural firm without authorization. The photographer argued that she took the pictures as part of her work in real estate photography and that a builder used the photos without her permission (Latka v. Integra Builders LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01591-JPH-KMB (S.D. Ind. Mar. 16, 2026)).

Latka is a real estate photographer who took photographs of two houses in Indiana. Latka alleged that Integra Builders, LLC (Integra) posted the photographs to its website in 2021, removing her copyright information, and adding its own watermark, after which Latka notified Integra of the infringement and Integra obtained permission from the owner of one of the homes depicted to use the photographs. In 2022, Latka registered the photographs with the U.S. Copyright Office, asserting that she was the exclusive holder of all rights in the photographs. In 2024, Integra republished the photographs to its website without Latka’s authorization, again removing her copyright information and adding its own watermark and logo. Latka brought suit for copyright infringement and violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). Integra moved for judgment on the pleadings.

Validity. Integra argued that the works were not copyrightable because they were simply reproductions of Integra’s own creative work in designing the homes in question, without independent creativity. The court found it was plausibly alleged that the photographs involved at least some degree of creativity in perspective, lens, shading, focus, and so on. At the pleading stage, the court could not find as a matter of law that Integra’s architectural designs were protectable or they were infringed by Latka’s photographs, so there was no basis for judgment on the pleadings against the validity of Latka’s asserted rights.

License. Integra argued that it received a license to use the works from the owner of one of the homes depicted. The allegation in the complaint, however, was that Latka, not the homeowner, owned the rights to the photographs. Accordingly, this defense was not established by the pleadings.

Damages. Integra argued that Latka was not eligible for statutory damages as to the first infringement or actual damages as to the second, and that it was not responsible for statutory damages as to the second because a third party posted the photographs. The court found that it was plausibly alleged that Integra was responsible for the second infringement, which occurred after registration, so Latka had pleaded her entitlement to statutory damages from Integra.

Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The court found that Latka had plausibly alleged the removal of her copyright management information from the photographs. It was not necessary for her to present any other evidence at the pleading stage.

The court denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-01591-JPH-KMB.

Judge: Hanlon, J.

Attorneys: David Christopher Deal (Deal Copyright Law) for Amy Latka. Malak Christian Mercho (Mercho Strzynski LLP) for Integra Builders LLC.

Companies: Integra Builders LLC

Cases: Copyright TechnologyInternet IndianaNews