IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—S.D.N.Y.: Court dismisses photographer’s action against Getty Images, (Aug 10, 2026)

By Sherri M. Schroeder, J.D.

The photographer claimed Getty violated his copyright by continuing to offer his photos for licensing after he notified them he owned their copyrights, but the court found he had transferred his ownership rights.

A New York district court has sided with Getty Images (US), Inc. (Getty) in its move to dismiss the copyright action filed against it by a professional photographer. The photographer claimed that Getty violated his rights during a two-month period in 2023 by continuing to offer his photographs for license after he notified Getty that he owned their copyrights. The court, however, disagreed and dismissed the action. The court found that the photographer’s complaint failed to state a claim to relief because the photographer had assigned the copyrights in his photographs to Agence France-Presse (AFP) and that Getty had a licensing agreement with AFP that permitted Getty to offer the photos for licensing (Asfouri v. Getty Images (US), Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00632-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)).

Getty holds a license with AFP, a French news agency, to publish AFP photographs for their joint benefit. The plaintiff is a professional photographer who once worked for AFP and had licensed more than 40,000 of his photos to AFP. When the photographer moved from work as a freelancer to a staff photographer, he signed a series of employment contracts with AFP that included some version of language stating that the agreement “operates as a complete assignment of any and all Copyrights... (whether taken by [the photographer] for AFP in the future or in the past...).” One contract also contained language that the agreement was “meant to be interpreted in the broadest manner possible granting AFP the broadest possible rights” and another that the “transfer to AFP is for the whole duration of the copyright and for the entire world.”

While still working for AFP, the photographer began registering copyrights with the U.S. copyright office of 9,953 of his photographs, including ones taken during his time working as an AFP freelancer until the day before he signed the first AFP employment contract in question. After the photographer’s relationship with AFP soured, he sent them a takedown notice and then two to Getty; Getty complied after receiving the second notice, which came approximately one month after the photographer was fired by AFP. The photographer then filed action against Getty for failing to remove the photographer’s photos from its website during the two months after it received the photographer’s first takedown notice. Getty moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint failed to state a claim because the photographer had assigned the copyrights in his photographs to AFP and that Getty had a licensing agreement with AFP that permitted Getty to offer the photographs for licensing.

The court agreed with Getty that the photographer’s complaint failed to plausibly allege either required element of copyright infringement: ownership of a valid copyright and infringement of the copyright by the defendant. The photographer conceded he signed an employment contract with AFP and that the agreement effected an assignment of the copyrights to his AFP photographs. However, the photographer claimed that this assignment was time-limited because it contained the words “[t]his agreement operates,” which the photographer claimed limited the “broad assignment” of his rights. The court found this reading to be contrary to the plain meaning of the contract’s terms.

The photographer’s next argument was that his AFP employment contract was void under the “fraud in the execution” doctrine. However, to prevail on such a defense, the photographer must show “excusable ignorance” of the contents of the document being signed, which he could not. The facts showed that he had a “Local Employment Contract” in his possession for 29 days before he was asked to sign it and the similar “Thailand Employment Agreement.” The facts also revealed that he did not read either document “word for word” before signing them. Per the court, it is a basic responsibility of a contracting party to read the document before signing it. Because the photographer failed to plead circumstances that would absolve him from that responsibility, the court found the photographer bound by his employment contract.

The court also found that the photographer failed to plausibly allege the second required element—that Getty infringed the copyrights in the photographs. In his complaint, the photographer acknowledged that Getty had a license with AFP that permitted Getty to publish the images it received from AFP. However, the complaint did not allege that Getty exceeded the terms of that license or that the photographer had the authority to revoke Getty’s license to distribute his photographs.

The photographer also alleged that Getty violated 17 U.S.C. § 1202(a), which bars providing false copyright management information (CMI), by offering to license the photographs to consumers when it did not have the authorization to do so. However, to properly plead a violation of that section, the complaint must allege both that Getty “knowingly” provided false CMS and that Getty did so “with the intent to induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement,” per the court. The photographer’s complaint, however, did not. As previously explained, the complaint failed to plead that the photographer owned the copyright. Instead, the documents used by the photographer to support his complaint indicated that he assigned the copyrights to AFP when he executed his employment agreements. Additionally, because Getty was not a party to the employment agreements between the photographer and AFP, even if it received a copy of the agreement, the plain meaning of the agreement’s assignment clause indicated that the photographer executed a complete assignment of all copyrights in the photographs he had taken and would take for AFP. This meant the photograph failed to plead a violation of § 1202(a).

Therefore, the court granted Getty’s motion to dismiss and closed the case.

The Case is No. 1:26-cv-00632-DLC.

Judge: Cote, D.

Attorneys: William Dunnegan (Dunnegan & Scileppi LLC) for Nicolas Asfouri. Nancy E. Wolff (Cowan, Debaets, Abrahams, & Sheppard LLP) for Getty Images [US], Inc.

Companies: Getty Images (US), Inc.

Cases: Copyright NewYorkNews